
Defining 'fairtrade' porn
Posted at 22:25 on 21 Jun 2011 by Pandora / Blake
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
Sorry about the length of this but I couldn't express my views in a shorter fashion.
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!
Should I remove the clause entirely, do you think, or reword it to make it clear that it's recommended rather than necessary?
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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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 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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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
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! ;)
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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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
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.
Should I remove the clause entirely, do you think, or reword it to make it clear that it's recommended rather than necessary?
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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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 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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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
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! ;)
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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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
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 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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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 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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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
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! ;)
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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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 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
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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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
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'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!
Should I remove the clause entirely, do you think, or reword it to make it clear that it's recommended rather than necessary?
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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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 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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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
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! ;)
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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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
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!
Should I remove the clause entirely, do you think, or reword it to make it clear that it's recommended rather than necessary?
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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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 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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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
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! ;)
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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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
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 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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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 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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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
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! ;)
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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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'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!
Should I remove the clause entirely, do you think, or reword it to make it clear that it's recommended rather than necessary?
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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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 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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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
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! ;)
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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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
Should I remove the clause entirely, do you think, or reword it to make it clear that it's recommended rather than necessary?
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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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 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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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
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! ;)
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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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 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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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 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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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
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! ;)
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.
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
Then get back to Woman's Hour - that would be priceless!
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'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...
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 your comment:
