Defining 'fairtrade' porn

Posted at 22:25 on 21 Jun 2011 by Pandora / Blake

Tags: Fairtrade porn, Gender politics, meta-analysis, other pictures, Performers and producers, Sex worker rights

One of the concepts I've been talking about a lot lately is that of "fairtrade" porn. This contrasts with feminist porn, which has a specific gender political agenda: whether porn is fairtrade or not does not to refer to the content of the porn, but rather how it was produced and the relationship between performers and producers.

The simplest type of fairtrade porn is homegrown - 'amateur' movies produced by couples, or solo performers running all aspects of their own business. When director, performer, producer and web salesperson are all the same person, chances are no-one's being exploited or treated disrespectfully. The bigger the company and the more employees it has, the harder this sort of thing is to manage.

Personally speaking, I am enthusiastic about making feminist AND fairtrade porn. But if I'm watching porn, one of the first things I want to find out about is the ethics of its production. I think this is a primary concern for a lot of consumers, and I'd like to see it become an industry standard to which porn producers are upheld.

So what exactly does it mean? I imagine people will have different ideas, and if we were to try and pin down a trade standard it would take a lot of discussion. But in trying to arrive at a code of conduct for my own business practices, I've done a lot of thinking about what has been most important to me as a performer, and what is most important to me as a viewer. I've come up with the following list.

In my opinion, fairtrade porn is:

  • Enthusiastically consensual. Ideally, performers aren't required to do anything they don't enjoy, or engage in acts beyond the scope of their sexuality/sexual interests.
  • Performers and all other crew members are paid a fair fee, whatever their gender. Ideally, men and women are paid the same rates for the same jobs.
  • All production is undertaken with a responsible attitude towards health and safety, and care for the wellbeing of the performers.
  • Performers are asked about their boundaries, and not put under any pressure, either on the shoot or in correspondence surrounding it, to change those boundaries.
  • Performers are treated with professional respect, and not condescended to, belittled, bullied or sexually harassed.
  • Performers aren't coerced, pressured or tricked into doing anything they aren't comfortable with, with anyone they aren't comfortable with. Once a performer has said no to a request, it is not made again.
  • Performers of any gender are named and credited using their chosen stage name.
  • Performers who are travelling to a shoot are well looked after. If catering, accommodation and travel will not be arranged by the producer, the producer will notify them of this before making a booking.
  • All limits and rates are agreed in advance of the shoot date, and that agreement is kept to by the producer.
  • Performers are made aware in advance of the uses the images will be put to, or else a release makes it clear that the producer may use the images for unannounced purposes in future.
  • The porn is at least in part performer-driven. Homegrown, independent productions in which performers create their own content strongly embody this principle, but all fairtrade porn should involve its performers in the creative process to some extent.
  • Presentation of the content is respectful to the performers. A clear distinction is made in the presentation between fantasy and reality so that the professionalism and enthusiastic consent of the performers is not in question for viewers.

Which covers the shoot process (how contracted performers are treated), pay and marketing ... but is there anything I've missed? If you care about how porn is made - whether it was produced safely, consensually, whether the people making it had fun - what is most important to you? While it is valuable to clarify my own priorities, I am also trying to come up with a set of ethical principles which will reassure viewers that the edgy, severe scenarios I film are fantasy, not reality. I want to explicitly make porn which answers the question "how can I tell if this is consensual?"

So how would you define fairtrade porn, and if you wanted to be confident that a website was sound, what would you look for?

Comments

As a watcher of porn (spanking mainly) and someone who supports the rights of women and workers in general I have frequently found myself debating the morality of both the film I am watching and my own participation by watching. That is one reason I have always found your comments interesting as you are both a participant in the films and clearly a politically and socially aware person. The fact that you make these films helps assure me that the people (particularly the women) are consenting to the acts in them. That is one reason why I do not watch some of the more severe films from Eastern Europe, however much the scenario appeals to me, as I cannot be certain that the acts are consensual and that the participants were fully aware of what would be required. I realise that you have appeared in films from those regions but have avoided those producers just to be safe. Sometimes I wonder whether it is possible to be concerned about the rights of women and other exploited minorities and at the same time watch porn and rules such as those you expressed in your piece help but do not fully answer that doubt.
Sorry about the length of this but I couldn't express my views in a shorter fashion.

Simon, thankyou so much for taking the time to write this comment, it's great to hear your thoughts. It's great to hear someone linking porn performer rights with worker's rights in general. Many people who support the latter don't make that connection!

I'm a massive advocate of blogging as a medium for reassurance in the porn industry. It can provide so much insight into the experience of performers, and when, like us, you enjoy watching fantasies of non-consensual scenarios, a personal blogpost by the performer can provide the consensual context which the film itself doesn't show. I'm really pleased that blogging seems to be becoming more popular among spanking models, it's entirely a good thing for the industry as it will promote more transparency, and a sense of the performers as real people.

Regarding producers such as Lupus and Mood, I know that many people are anxious about the levels of consent. I have been told by Niki Flynn, Adele Haze and others who have worked for them multiple times that the Lupus actors are mostly people in the Czech spanking scene and are enthusiasts and players. The money is not great and people do it for the love of it. Lupus also make very creative, original and political films which stand as works of art without the spanking element, and I know of actors who like being in them for the creative rewards even if they do not have a great personal interest in CP.


Regarding Mood, the best insight can be gained from the posts on Ludwig's blog about his experience filming for them. Like Pain4fem, the other Hungarian site, the performers are rarely kinky but are more likely to be people who are trying to earn some extra pocket money. Personally I prefer to watch films where I know the performer is "into" it, but ethically I can't argue with the rights of people to choose to do a film for Mood rather than spend a month washing dishes or working for an unpleasant boss.

I have my own reasons for not having worked for either Mood or Lupus so far. Neither is to do with safety, and mostly it's about how long the marks from a severe caning last, and wanting to save scenes that severe for my own productions. So I would not leap to conclusions! However, I agree that neither producer goes out of their way to reassure viewers that the productions are consensual, and both might benefit from making their behind the scenes material more prominent, or giving their models/performers a voice on the website. The problem there of course is the language barrier - English people would not necessarily be able to understand what the models were saying!

Kaelah, as it happens D said exactly the same thing when he read my post! I think you are both correct. Personally speaking I think performer-driven porn is likely to be better, and I would rather watch it, and be involved in making it. But I take the point that it's a nice bonus, not a question of fairness, or of ethical trading.

Should I remove the clause entirely, do you think, or reword it to make it clear that it's recommended rather than necessary?

I would not particularly want to watch actor-driven mainstream films. Except in the rare cases where an actor has the talent for writing, directing etc.

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Pandora, while I think that porn doesn't have to be performer-driven in order to be considered fairtrade porn, I would still mention it as an important point when you talk about your own approach as a producer of kinky porn. Of course I'm not a model, but for me personal input is a necessity at least in some scenarios. Without it I wouldn't be able to do some of the more demanding scenes. Maybe there are models for whom this is true as well. So, I would say it's not necessary to mention that aspect when defining fairtrade porn, but you definitely should mention it when talking about your own approach as a producer because it shows a lot about your attitude towards both, the porn that you produce and the models who work for you!

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

amateur videos are by definition consensual may be a little optimistic

True! And they aren't all marketed in the way that I'd like, either - with emphasis on the personalities/characters of the players. A lot of them are quite anonymous, which I guess is understandable. Even if amateur stuff IS consensual they don't always go out of their way to express it. Commercial endeavours have much more motivation to be seen to be responsible/accountable, I guess.

I'm 100% with you on the need for behind the scenes material. The recorded interview isn't enough. In order to be reassured, you also want to see out-takes, blogs and comments by the performers, ideally be able to interact with the performers real time in forums and chat rooms. I don't agree with payment models that only make the behind the scenes material accessible to people paying a higher rate. I think behind the scenes content is essential to demonstrate the fairtrade credentials of your project.

Believe it or not I turned down a Woman's Hour interview a couple of months ago. There are certain conversations I need to have with my parents first, and my dad listens to it! ;)

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

I absolutely agree with you about fairtrade porn, Pandora! And knowing about your values and your attitude towards porn was one of the reasons why I decided to ask you whether you would like to film that rather severe scene with Ludwig and me for your site! :-)

The one aspect which I don't find strictly necessary (for the definition of fairtrade porn) is that the porn must be at least partly performer-driven. Don't get me wrong, I definitely love it that way, but in case the performers are comfortable with a given scene and aren't forced to do anything they are not comfortable with, to my mind input of the performers isn't strictly mandatory in order to create fairtrade porn.

Kaelah, as it happens D said exactly the same thing when he read my post! I think you are both correct. Personally speaking I think performer-driven porn is likely to be better, and I would rather watch it, and be involved in making it. But I take the point that it's a nice bonus, not a question of fairness, or of ethical trading.

Should I remove the clause entirely, do you think, or reword it to make it clear that it's recommended rather than necessary?

I would not particularly want to watch actor-driven mainstream films. Except in the rare cases where an actor has the talent for writing, directing etc.

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Pandora, while I think that porn doesn't have to be performer-driven in order to be considered fairtrade porn, I would still mention it as an important point when you talk about your own approach as a producer of kinky porn. Of course I'm not a model, but for me personal input is a necessity at least in some scenarios. Without it I wouldn't be able to do some of the more demanding scenes. Maybe there are models for whom this is true as well. So, I would say it's not necessary to mention that aspect when defining fairtrade porn, but you definitely should mention it when talking about your own approach as a producer because it shows a lot about your attitude towards both, the porn that you produce and the models who work for you!

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

amateur videos are by definition consensual may be a little optimistic

True! And they aren't all marketed in the way that I'd like, either - with emphasis on the personalities/characters of the players. A lot of them are quite anonymous, which I guess is understandable. Even if amateur stuff IS consensual they don't always go out of their way to express it. Commercial endeavours have much more motivation to be seen to be responsible/accountable, I guess.

I'm 100% with you on the need for behind the scenes material. The recorded interview isn't enough. In order to be reassured, you also want to see out-takes, blogs and comments by the performers, ideally be able to interact with the performers real time in forums and chat rooms. I don't agree with payment models that only make the behind the scenes material accessible to people paying a higher rate. I think behind the scenes content is essential to demonstrate the fairtrade credentials of your project.

Believe it or not I turned down a Woman's Hour interview a couple of months ago. There are certain conversations I need to have with my parents first, and my dad listens to it! ;)

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

I think your definition is pretty sound, though your assumption that amateur videos are by definition consensual may be a little optimistic.

It is important for me to believe that any porn I view is consensual and because I assume a lot is not, I buy very little. I think almost every set of rules can be bent but the things you set out above seem pretty sound.

The thing I think most likely to make me think that the participants are genuinely consenting would be to have a few minutes of video to camera from them - maybe before and after - linked to the movie. Like the extras on a DVD. The more clearly linked it is to the video in question the more credible it would be i.e. not just one 'I consent' clip that can be tacked onto any film.

Links to participants web sites would also add hugely to the credibility, but I imagine there might be commercial issues at stake.

I think this is a real issue that should be taken seriously. I am looking forward to hearing your interview on Woman's Hour, Jenni Murray asking you why you like being spanked and why you are choosing to make a living out of it.

I would not particularly want to watch actor-driven mainstream films. Except in the rare cases where an actor has the talent for writing, directing etc.

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Pandora, while I think that porn doesn't have to be performer-driven in order to be considered fairtrade porn, I would still mention it as an important point when you talk about your own approach as a producer of kinky porn. Of course I'm not a model, but for me personal input is a necessity at least in some scenarios. Without it I wouldn't be able to do some of the more demanding scenes. Maybe there are models for whom this is true as well. So, I would say it's not necessary to mention that aspect when defining fairtrade porn, but you definitely should mention it when talking about your own approach as a producer because it shows a lot about your attitude towards both, the porn that you produce and the models who work for you!

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

amateur videos are by definition consensual may be a little optimistic

True! And they aren't all marketed in the way that I'd like, either - with emphasis on the personalities/characters of the players. A lot of them are quite anonymous, which I guess is understandable. Even if amateur stuff IS consensual they don't always go out of their way to express it. Commercial endeavours have much more motivation to be seen to be responsible/accountable, I guess.

I'm 100% with you on the need for behind the scenes material. The recorded interview isn't enough. In order to be reassured, you also want to see out-takes, blogs and comments by the performers, ideally be able to interact with the performers real time in forums and chat rooms. I don't agree with payment models that only make the behind the scenes material accessible to people paying a higher rate. I think behind the scenes content is essential to demonstrate the fairtrade credentials of your project.

Believe it or not I turned down a Woman's Hour interview a couple of months ago. There are certain conversations I need to have with my parents first, and my dad listens to it! ;)

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Pandora,

I think this is a fantastic framework with which to view fair trade in the industry. The only clause I wonder about is "Ideally, men and women are paid the same rates for the same jobs." Certainly as a feminist I agree. However, I wonder about the role of supply and demand. If a producer finds that, say, featuring a female spankee consistently garners higher revenue than her male counterpart, and she is paying them both the same, she could have a dis-incentive to use the male spankee. He's costing her more in terms of profit. I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to set minimal standards and ensure that both genders get paid at that minimum standard... Just a thought.

I definitely like to know performances are consensual and I think it's a great idea to reveal this in separate footage. When I have been in the mood for darker scenes in the past I have gone to look at Mood Productions. (I don't even know if they're still around.) But until I saw this one video excerpt that showed the women having fun and seeming to be very relaxed, I often wondered if they were somehow coerced into taking such harsh punishment. That put my mind at ease in that case. Of course I have to wonder how much that is related to how emotionally intuitive I am and whether or not such a video could be faked for the general public.

Best Regards,
Quai

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

I think performers acting out scenes that they find hot has to be the best - but we can't see what in going on in your head on screen without the help of some film making and acting techniques. Less spanking porn better made by skilled enthusiasts would be my ideal.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

[...] little while ago I wrote an article in which I attempted to define what “fairtrade” porn would look like. There obviously isn’t an international standard for fairtrade porn, but perhaps there should [...]

Simon, thankyou so much for taking the time to write this comment, it's great to hear your thoughts. It's great to hear someone linking porn performer rights with worker's rights in general. Many people who support the latter don't make that connection!

I'm a massive advocate of blogging as a medium for reassurance in the porn industry. It can provide so much insight into the experience of performers, and when, like us, you enjoy watching fantasies of non-consensual scenarios, a personal blogpost by the performer can provide the consensual context which the film itself doesn't show. I'm really pleased that blogging seems to be becoming more popular among spanking models, it's entirely a good thing for the industry as it will promote more transparency, and a sense of the performers as real people.

Regarding producers such as Lupus and Mood, I know that many people are anxious about the levels of consent. I have been told by Niki Flynn, Adele Haze and others who have worked for them multiple times that the Lupus actors are mostly people in the Czech spanking scene and are enthusiasts and players. The money is not great and people do it for the love of it. Lupus also make very creative, original and political films which stand as works of art without the spanking element, and I know of actors who like being in them for the creative rewards even if they do not have a great personal interest in CP.


Regarding Mood, the best insight can be gained from the posts on Ludwig's blog about his experience filming for them. Like Pain4fem, the other Hungarian site, the performers are rarely kinky but are more likely to be people who are trying to earn some extra pocket money. Personally I prefer to watch films where I know the performer is "into" it, but ethically I can't argue with the rights of people to choose to do a film for Mood rather than spend a month washing dishes or working for an unpleasant boss.

I have my own reasons for not having worked for either Mood or Lupus so far. Neither is to do with safety, and mostly it's about how long the marks from a severe caning last, and wanting to save scenes that severe for my own productions. So I would not leap to conclusions! However, I agree that neither producer goes out of their way to reassure viewers that the productions are consensual, and both might benefit from making their behind the scenes material more prominent, or giving their models/performers a voice on the website. The problem there of course is the language barrier - English people would not necessarily be able to understand what the models were saying!

Kaelah, as it happens D said exactly the same thing when he read my post! I think you are both correct. Personally speaking I think performer-driven porn is likely to be better, and I would rather watch it, and be involved in making it. But I take the point that it's a nice bonus, not a question of fairness, or of ethical trading.

Should I remove the clause entirely, do you think, or reword it to make it clear that it's recommended rather than necessary?

I would not particularly want to watch actor-driven mainstream films. Except in the rare cases where an actor has the talent for writing, directing etc.

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Pandora, while I think that porn doesn't have to be performer-driven in order to be considered fairtrade porn, I would still mention it as an important point when you talk about your own approach as a producer of kinky porn. Of course I'm not a model, but for me personal input is a necessity at least in some scenarios. Without it I wouldn't be able to do some of the more demanding scenes. Maybe there are models for whom this is true as well. So, I would say it's not necessary to mention that aspect when defining fairtrade porn, but you definitely should mention it when talking about your own approach as a producer because it shows a lot about your attitude towards both, the porn that you produce and the models who work for you!

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

amateur videos are by definition consensual may be a little optimistic

True! And they aren't all marketed in the way that I'd like, either - with emphasis on the personalities/characters of the players. A lot of them are quite anonymous, which I guess is understandable. Even if amateur stuff IS consensual they don't always go out of their way to express it. Commercial endeavours have much more motivation to be seen to be responsible/accountable, I guess.

I'm 100% with you on the need for behind the scenes material. The recorded interview isn't enough. In order to be reassured, you also want to see out-takes, blogs and comments by the performers, ideally be able to interact with the performers real time in forums and chat rooms. I don't agree with payment models that only make the behind the scenes material accessible to people paying a higher rate. I think behind the scenes content is essential to demonstrate the fairtrade credentials of your project.

Believe it or not I turned down a Woman's Hour interview a couple of months ago. There are certain conversations I need to have with my parents first, and my dad listens to it! ;)

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Brilliantly argued post and I would love there to be some kind of Fair Trade mark for porn - how else can one know if the standards you set are being met? I suppose that most of the US/UK spanking sites (and videos before that) I have purchased from have left me with the impression that most of the standards (except performer-led) would be followed. But I could be quite wrong. The one glaring exception to this are the Mood Casting videos, which of course lay open a paradigm of non-con-sensuality in a way (unless all the scenes are just faked - the scene not the caning - which I find hard to believe)which is at the heart of their eroticism (for me). If you don't know these the scene is always identical: a Mood pro-Domme interviews a woman for about half the video, then the woman strips and is tested to see if she can take 50 cane strokes (of Mood severity) - a considerable percentage cannot and call it off. Now I am sure the woman know what is going to be involved (the ads must say something) but equally, unless they are brilliant actresses, it is clear that most of them are just there for the money (presumably a lot in East European terms) - in no way could they be considered "Enthusiastically consensual" or if so only to earn the money. But this dilemma extends way beyond porn - obviously to various other forms of sex work, but also to many other forms of work even in Western society - how many sewage workers are 'enthusiastically consensual'? (unless they have a scat fetish - sorry fatal sense of humour). Indeed how many people are lucky enough to have employment to which they are 'enthusiastically consensual' other than for wages? (yup I am talking alienated labour sorry). Very long winded but hope I make point.

On the other hand the most enthusiastically consensual non-spanking porn I have seen is the Jerky Girls studio (hand-job porn) on clips-for-sale: if those women aren't having a ton of fun then they are brilliant actresses too!

Kaelah, as it happens D said exactly the same thing when he read my post! I think you are both correct. Personally speaking I think performer-driven porn is likely to be better, and I would rather watch it, and be involved in making it. But I take the point that it's a nice bonus, not a question of fairness, or of ethical trading.

Should I remove the clause entirely, do you think, or reword it to make it clear that it's recommended rather than necessary?

I would not particularly want to watch actor-driven mainstream films. Except in the rare cases where an actor has the talent for writing, directing etc.

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Pandora, while I think that porn doesn't have to be performer-driven in order to be considered fairtrade porn, I would still mention it as an important point when you talk about your own approach as a producer of kinky porn. Of course I'm not a model, but for me personal input is a necessity at least in some scenarios. Without it I wouldn't be able to do some of the more demanding scenes. Maybe there are models for whom this is true as well. So, I would say it's not necessary to mention that aspect when defining fairtrade porn, but you definitely should mention it when talking about your own approach as a producer because it shows a lot about your attitude towards both, the porn that you produce and the models who work for you!

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

amateur videos are by definition consensual may be a little optimistic

True! And they aren't all marketed in the way that I'd like, either - with emphasis on the personalities/characters of the players. A lot of them are quite anonymous, which I guess is understandable. Even if amateur stuff IS consensual they don't always go out of their way to express it. Commercial endeavours have much more motivation to be seen to be responsible/accountable, I guess.

I'm 100% with you on the need for behind the scenes material. The recorded interview isn't enough. In order to be reassured, you also want to see out-takes, blogs and comments by the performers, ideally be able to interact with the performers real time in forums and chat rooms. I don't agree with payment models that only make the behind the scenes material accessible to people paying a higher rate. I think behind the scenes content is essential to demonstrate the fairtrade credentials of your project.

Believe it or not I turned down a Woman's Hour interview a couple of months ago. There are certain conversations I need to have with my parents first, and my dad listens to it! ;)

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

I agree to this sound definition. The major problem I see is the lack of reliable information. On most websites, the only backround information provided is a mailing adress. I googled some names of spanking porn performers and production companies.unfortunately,it seemed to be impossible to find more than advertising or unverified rumours.Which is not really a big surprise.Insiders, who could provide valid information, are very often directly affiliated to production companies and therefore not very trustworthy, or they want to stay in the shadows, simply because everyone, who is connected to the porn business is still widely seen as sleazy and shady.

Anyway,if I can't even find out for sure, if that GirlsBoardingSchool guy is really German or just faking a German accent, how am I supposed to know about the female models and the way they're being treated? I'm glad about more and more companies are providing behind the scenes material, but I think, that as long as most companies don't reveal their conditions of production, some kind of neutral third party,something like a "Fairtrade Rating Agency" would be a great accomplishment, someone, who could thoroughly research and evaluate all the necessary informatinon and then publish the results.

(Sorry for all the grammar- and spelling errors I probably made, I'm not a native speaker)

I would not particularly want to watch actor-driven mainstream films. Except in the rare cases where an actor has the talent for writing, directing etc.

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Pandora, while I think that porn doesn't have to be performer-driven in order to be considered fairtrade porn, I would still mention it as an important point when you talk about your own approach as a producer of kinky porn. Of course I'm not a model, but for me personal input is a necessity at least in some scenarios. Without it I wouldn't be able to do some of the more demanding scenes. Maybe there are models for whom this is true as well. So, I would say it's not necessary to mention that aspect when defining fairtrade porn, but you definitely should mention it when talking about your own approach as a producer because it shows a lot about your attitude towards both, the porn that you produce and the models who work for you!

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

amateur videos are by definition consensual may be a little optimistic

True! And they aren't all marketed in the way that I'd like, either - with emphasis on the personalities/characters of the players. A lot of them are quite anonymous, which I guess is understandable. Even if amateur stuff IS consensual they don't always go out of their way to express it. Commercial endeavours have much more motivation to be seen to be responsible/accountable, I guess.

I'm 100% with you on the need for behind the scenes material. The recorded interview isn't enough. In order to be reassured, you also want to see out-takes, blogs and comments by the performers, ideally be able to interact with the performers real time in forums and chat rooms. I don't agree with payment models that only make the behind the scenes material accessible to people paying a higher rate. I think behind the scenes content is essential to demonstrate the fairtrade credentials of your project.

Believe it or not I turned down a Woman's Hour interview a couple of months ago. There are certain conversations I need to have with my parents first, and my dad listens to it! ;)

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

[…] own scripts and have a say or final veto in everything that happens on camera. Feminist porn is fairtrade porn, and performers are paid fairly and well, fed well, and treated well. Communication beforehand is […]

Simon, thankyou so much for taking the time to write this comment, it's great to hear your thoughts. It's great to hear someone linking porn performer rights with worker's rights in general. Many people who support the latter don't make that connection!

I'm a massive advocate of blogging as a medium for reassurance in the porn industry. It can provide so much insight into the experience of performers, and when, like us, you enjoy watching fantasies of non-consensual scenarios, a personal blogpost by the performer can provide the consensual context which the film itself doesn't show. I'm really pleased that blogging seems to be becoming more popular among spanking models, it's entirely a good thing for the industry as it will promote more transparency, and a sense of the performers as real people.

Regarding producers such as Lupus and Mood, I know that many people are anxious about the levels of consent. I have been told by Niki Flynn, Adele Haze and others who have worked for them multiple times that the Lupus actors are mostly people in the Czech spanking scene and are enthusiasts and players. The money is not great and people do it for the love of it. Lupus also make very creative, original and political films which stand as works of art without the spanking element, and I know of actors who like being in them for the creative rewards even if they do not have a great personal interest in CP.


Regarding Mood, the best insight can be gained from the posts on Ludwig's blog about his experience filming for them. Like Pain4fem, the other Hungarian site, the performers are rarely kinky but are more likely to be people who are trying to earn some extra pocket money. Personally I prefer to watch films where I know the performer is "into" it, but ethically I can't argue with the rights of people to choose to do a film for Mood rather than spend a month washing dishes or working for an unpleasant boss.

I have my own reasons for not having worked for either Mood or Lupus so far. Neither is to do with safety, and mostly it's about how long the marks from a severe caning last, and wanting to save scenes that severe for my own productions. So I would not leap to conclusions! However, I agree that neither producer goes out of their way to reassure viewers that the productions are consensual, and both might benefit from making their behind the scenes material more prominent, or giving their models/performers a voice on the website. The problem there of course is the language barrier - English people would not necessarily be able to understand what the models were saying!

Kaelah, as it happens D said exactly the same thing when he read my post! I think you are both correct. Personally speaking I think performer-driven porn is likely to be better, and I would rather watch it, and be involved in making it. But I take the point that it's a nice bonus, not a question of fairness, or of ethical trading.

Should I remove the clause entirely, do you think, or reword it to make it clear that it's recommended rather than necessary?

I would not particularly want to watch actor-driven mainstream films. Except in the rare cases where an actor has the talent for writing, directing etc.

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Pandora, while I think that porn doesn't have to be performer-driven in order to be considered fairtrade porn, I would still mention it as an important point when you talk about your own approach as a producer of kinky porn. Of course I'm not a model, but for me personal input is a necessity at least in some scenarios. Without it I wouldn't be able to do some of the more demanding scenes. Maybe there are models for whom this is true as well. So, I would say it's not necessary to mention that aspect when defining fairtrade porn, but you definitely should mention it when talking about your own approach as a producer because it shows a lot about your attitude towards both, the porn that you produce and the models who work for you!

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

amateur videos are by definition consensual may be a little optimistic

True! And they aren't all marketed in the way that I'd like, either - with emphasis on the personalities/characters of the players. A lot of them are quite anonymous, which I guess is understandable. Even if amateur stuff IS consensual they don't always go out of their way to express it. Commercial endeavours have much more motivation to be seen to be responsible/accountable, I guess.

I'm 100% with you on the need for behind the scenes material. The recorded interview isn't enough. In order to be reassured, you also want to see out-takes, blogs and comments by the performers, ideally be able to interact with the performers real time in forums and chat rooms. I don't agree with payment models that only make the behind the scenes material accessible to people paying a higher rate. I think behind the scenes content is essential to demonstrate the fairtrade credentials of your project.

Believe it or not I turned down a Woman's Hour interview a couple of months ago. There are certain conversations I need to have with my parents first, and my dad listens to it! ;)

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

[…] movement that puts pressure on producers who exploit their workers. When I attempted to define fairtrade porn two years ago, this is what I was talking […]

Kaelah, as it happens D said exactly the same thing when he read my post! I think you are both correct. Personally speaking I think performer-driven porn is likely to be better, and I would rather watch it, and be involved in making it. But I take the point that it's a nice bonus, not a question of fairness, or of ethical trading.

Should I remove the clause entirely, do you think, or reword it to make it clear that it's recommended rather than necessary?

I would not particularly want to watch actor-driven mainstream films. Except in the rare cases where an actor has the talent for writing, directing etc.

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Pandora, while I think that porn doesn't have to be performer-driven in order to be considered fairtrade porn, I would still mention it as an important point when you talk about your own approach as a producer of kinky porn. Of course I'm not a model, but for me personal input is a necessity at least in some scenarios. Without it I wouldn't be able to do some of the more demanding scenes. Maybe there are models for whom this is true as well. So, I would say it's not necessary to mention that aspect when defining fairtrade porn, but you definitely should mention it when talking about your own approach as a producer because it shows a lot about your attitude towards both, the porn that you produce and the models who work for you!

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

amateur videos are by definition consensual may be a little optimistic

True! And they aren't all marketed in the way that I'd like, either - with emphasis on the personalities/characters of the players. A lot of them are quite anonymous, which I guess is understandable. Even if amateur stuff IS consensual they don't always go out of their way to express it. Commercial endeavours have much more motivation to be seen to be responsible/accountable, I guess.

I'm 100% with you on the need for behind the scenes material. The recorded interview isn't enough. In order to be reassured, you also want to see out-takes, blogs and comments by the performers, ideally be able to interact with the performers real time in forums and chat rooms. I don't agree with payment models that only make the behind the scenes material accessible to people paying a higher rate. I think behind the scenes content is essential to demonstrate the fairtrade credentials of your project.

Believe it or not I turned down a Woman's Hour interview a couple of months ago. There are certain conversations I need to have with my parents first, and my dad listens to it! ;)

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

[…] Blake. She could be a poster woman for the movement. In the past she’s written posts on fairtrade porn, feminist porn, ethical porn and the censorship of them all. She’s covered how to make it […]

I would not particularly want to watch actor-driven mainstream films. Except in the rare cases where an actor has the talent for writing, directing etc.

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Pandora, while I think that porn doesn't have to be performer-driven in order to be considered fairtrade porn, I would still mention it as an important point when you talk about your own approach as a producer of kinky porn. Of course I'm not a model, but for me personal input is a necessity at least in some scenarios. Without it I wouldn't be able to do some of the more demanding scenes. Maybe there are models for whom this is true as well. So, I would say it's not necessary to mention that aspect when defining fairtrade porn, but you definitely should mention it when talking about your own approach as a producer because it shows a lot about your attitude towards both, the porn that you produce and the models who work for you!

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

amateur videos are by definition consensual may be a little optimistic

True! And they aren't all marketed in the way that I'd like, either - with emphasis on the personalities/characters of the players. A lot of them are quite anonymous, which I guess is understandable. Even if amateur stuff IS consensual they don't always go out of their way to express it. Commercial endeavours have much more motivation to be seen to be responsible/accountable, I guess.

I'm 100% with you on the need for behind the scenes material. The recorded interview isn't enough. In order to be reassured, you also want to see out-takes, blogs and comments by the performers, ideally be able to interact with the performers real time in forums and chat rooms. I don't agree with payment models that only make the behind the scenes material accessible to people paying a higher rate. I think behind the scenes content is essential to demonstrate the fairtrade credentials of your project.

Believe it or not I turned down a Woman's Hour interview a couple of months ago. There are certain conversations I need to have with my parents first, and my dad listens to it! ;)

ROFL! I take your point, sir :)

I do think that there are differences, though. A lot of porn is not very plot-dependent, and which may be shot from one or two camera angles without any complex storyboarding and cinematography. Instead it is almost exclusively performance-led and therefore it's easier to see how the performers themselves could have useful creative input.

Secondly, I think it's possible for a performer to come up with a concept they personally find hot/exciting - which will then feed back into their performance and make the scene sizzle more than if they were simply following a script - without necessarily implying that crew and producer won't still need to do their jobs. So the performer could "seed" an idea, but it would still be written, storyboarded, produced, directed, lit, filmed, edited etc by those with the technical experience to do so. I guess this is what I meant, rather than handing over full creative control to performers. Perhaps "performer-driven" isn't a good term, then - maybe "performer-inspired"?

Still, I think I'm convinced that even this isn't necessary for ethical production - just a nice bonus if you can manage it.

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Well I can't tell you how to deal with your parents, but I am pretty confident they would rather hear it from you than anyone else. And when they do hear it from you they will still worry about who knew before they did so sooner is better than later.

Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Quai, you might be interested in reading this conversation relating to Kitty Stryker's Andro-Aperture project. I don't think that ethical considerations should give way to economic "realities". If we accepted that the market was a given, we would never have been able to fight any other aspect of capitalist injustice.

I'd like you to rethink your point in terms of race rather than gender. If websites received more positive feedback from updates featuring white performers than those featuring performers of colour, does this mean they are ethically justified in paying white people more? I don't think so, and I don't think gender is any different.

I've heard from a lot of people for whom the performer interview isn't enough for them to be sure (and indeed I've given such interviews at shoots which were non-ideal - they aren't an appropriate medium for expressing any reservations you might have!) That's why I think behind-the-scenes content is a better bet. A performer can answer interview questions saying "yes, I had lots of fun, it was great!" without mentioning this or that which they weren't quite comfortable with. But if you see outtakes of performers goofing around, flirting together, sharing jokes and affection - that's much harder to fake, and it's much harder to envisage a circumstance in which it could be.

I'd go further and say that to be absolutely confident, you need not only this sort of footage but to be a member of the same community as the performers/producers and interact with them directly. But that's food for another post, I think...

I just read the conversation you pointed to and re-considered. For disclosure purposes, I'm Black man (het/Dom). When you mentioned considering race in the same terms as gender, it did give me pause to re-think. I tend to think that the negative reaction to racism as well as sexism hinges on the past injustices of the race or gender in power, against the less powerful race/gender. With that commonality, I believe it is important to set standards of equality, so that we can change address injustices and prevent new patterns of preferential treatment from emerging. In that sense I definitely agree with you that remuneration or compensation should be equal across race, gender, sexual orientation, and power exchange orientation.

However, this does leave us with the question of what to do with the economic reality of the influence of audience preferences. If I'm a producer and I see that young, fit, white women are bringing in more dollars, there's still a temptation to make that my hiring preference. The fair trade standards you're presenting don't seem to cover things at this level, and perhaps they were not meant to. After all, a policy set does have to have a scope that stops somewhere. I'm just thinking that someone pockets the extra profit resulting from (fair or unfair) audience/buyer preference. It's going to be the production company or the talent or some combination. My question to "chew on" is can we or should we formulate a fair and ethical guideline around this question or is it perhaps too far out of scope and maybe too complex with two many ambiguous factors.

Best Regards,
Quai

Add a comment

Post as:

(or log in to post with your own username)

I'm fighting porn censorship - support me on Patreon

Browse archive

2011

Find Pandora online

Feminist porn

Spanking porn

Spanking blogs

Sex and Politics blogs

Toplists & directories