Hate Mail - Who Has Money And Who Does Not Is The Key To Understanding How People Really Think When That's Shrouded In Euphemisms

It is rather fascinating how, in these free-speechy, anti-inhibition days that there are strings of euphemisms that one is required to use to cover up the reality of what things really are.   And, gosh, wouldn't you just know it, none of those are as de rigueur as those dealing with the most depraved aspects of sex.   And, no, rape isn't just "a crime of violence" it is a criminal kind of sex.  It is sex as a hate act, it is almost always sex as an act of violent male supremacy, that is as true of gay rape which is, also, a hate act, frequently mixing self-hate with a hatred of the one who can be dominated and harmed for the gratification of the rapist.   So, no more of the bull shit that "rape isn't about sex".  Things can be about more than one thing at the same time.

No, the people who appear in pornography are not "actors" they are not acting.  They're having dirty sex for the titillation and instruction of an audience, most of whom are men and boys who would only find anything like character development, themes and plots got in the way of what they watch it for. The producers and directors and "writers" of porn scripts would probably fire anyone who did any actual acting.

Many of the people you see in porn are forced into it by circumstances, violence or threats of violence, much of what you see on screen and in photos is, actually, rape, the "actors" are rapists and the victim of rape.  That is certainly true of the many freely distributed images online in which the person being raped is clearly underage, it is almost as certainly true of many who are compelled to "act" in them.

In these days when the term "rape" has been redefined to mean that someone who drank too much and made a fool of themselves by consenting to have sex with someone can claim to have been "raped", it is incredible that someone who is compelled by a pimp, a director, a producer or someone else to allow themselves to be violently and painfully used in a porn film out of financial desperation or some other form of  compulsion isn't, automatically, regarded as the victim of rape.  But the opposite is the case and in that I think we can see how the porn industry benefits from the actual attitude towards the victims of porn-prostitution which is mostly a form of rape for profit.

I believe the euphemisms involved are a window into how people really see porn and the people used by it, who are seldom upper class and are certainly not seen as respectable.   If a career woman or college woman drinks too much and makes a fool of herself by waking up to realize she has agreed to have sex with a creep, she is now often allowed to call that rape because she is considered respectable.  If that's to be allowed then certainly what happens regularly in porn is actual rape.  Not infrequently the "actors" in porn movies and photos are led to that form of prostitution through drug addiction or alcoholism or as a result of having been raped and abused in reality instead of current convention.  The difference in the terminology, I will maintain,  is an aspect of class privilege, and since that is inevitably tied to money, it will be twisted to favor those with the most money.   That is the real reason that things have been so twisted in favor of the people who make millions and billions of dollars off of the rape that pornography and prostitution is.  That and their ability to hire high-power lawyers who work in the "free speech" industry and other front men who have plastered their propaganda all over the media going back a century.

Just as pointed out, yesterday, the very people who claim to see porn as totally acceptable would certainly never find it acceptable for their children, their grandchildren, their spouse, their parents, and anyone else who they maintained a loving concern for to take up pornography as a job.  It's OK for other people, not for their people.  So I think the use of euphemisms and the twisting of definitions also expose the hypocrisy of such people who love to think of themselves as pillars of broadminded, enlightened liberality and free-speech, free-press.   In the end, it comes down to the same class distinctions that it always has. And that is mostly about money, who is assumed to have it and who is assumed to not have it.  Who is assumed to have the potential to have it and the respectability that comes with that and who never will as they are destroyed by those industries.