“Performers are rampantly abused, and women mostly age out by their twenties.” Hence why that industry has the highest suicide rate of any industry.

The biological functions of sex in biology is for reproduction and for pair bonding. The production of oxytocin of touch and nurture. The sex acts here seem to be more about self gratification rather than relationship. I am deliberately not saying which is better although I am biased towards the mutual comfort version. I just think that biology has more to say about behaviours than we think and that moral choice is not just about mindset.

Stilettos? In an inflatable dinghy? Madness.

Is this a non-fiction article about whether porn should be banned, or a movie review?
The headline and subhead (which I suppose the author may not have written) and the first couple of paragraphs suggest the author is going to deal with the reality of porn, at least as the author sees it. But the only evidence presented is the contents of a movie about the porn industry, a work of fiction.
“Bella’s” *fictional* experiences are no proper basis for real-world policy changes. Real world evidence is required. And it’s not good enough to claim, without evidence, that a work of fiction accurately depicts the reality. Not in a policy article.
If you want to make the case for banning something, you need to do better than this.

There could be some effort to persuade girls and women to make better choices. Stop telling them that they can do anything they want, and that they should expect to be shielded from any negative consequences of their own actions.

I’ve also noticed a distinct inability to tell the difference between attention and admiration in too many women.

Porn will continue as long as there are people willing to be in it.

Is it the film which is disliked? The director’s treatment of the material? The short from which the movie was derived/extended? The subject of the film? The vulgarity? The nudity? The grotesque nature of the story and the explicit crudity of this particular cinematic experience?
Is it the presumed connection between this fictional ‘depiction’ of a pornographic film and what Thyberg implies is an actual pornographic film which may or may not treat its actors and actresses in the same mechanistic & exploitive manner that Thyberg treated hers?
We have no real idea, of course. But that is not surprising because we equally have no real idea as to what is real, what is imagined, what is mirror, and what is perverted fantasy in the construction and selling of Pleasure itself.
The ‘nod & a wink’ nature of so-called porno exposés is that the expose itself exists and is consumed as porno (albeit a self-aware porno) by the very audience who would find the porno so ‘cinematized’ as cheap & exploitive in its original form, but not when looking at it in an ‘artistic’ mirror. Perhaps it’s OK, now, to be cheap & exploitive if by doing so we end-up at Cannes & Sundance?
In the end it probably doesn’t matter.
Based on the description and what is revealed by a quick, unfiltered Googling there is nothing here of value or interest. And that is too bad. it’s too bad because, as the author first hints and then abandons — there is substance in a careful & reasoned consideration of what is and is not pornographic / erotic (and how we humans negotiate same). There is substance in the consideration of the extent to which voluntary participation in so-called exploitation (of any sort) truly is or is not exploitive.
Do we ‘exploit’ LeBron when we fill our coliseums to watch him play? Or does LeBron exploit us, by selling us his BBall talent at insanely exorbitant rates. Is a beautiful women exploited when she agrees to share some portion of her self, her beauty, her form, her sensuality (real? Memorex?) for buckets of dollars? Or is it the size of the bucket which determines the degree of exploitation?
Like the old joke whose punchline ends, “we’re just negotiating price!”
There is much which could have been done here with a subject ripe with potential and interest — maybe next time.

If there is actually a central message in this article, other than porn is bad and feminists shouldn’t support it, I’ve been unable to find it.

What i object to is the apparently basic premise made here that in going, moving, shifting herself all the way from Sweden to California, the protagonist can yet have no desires of her “own”. All admissions of mimesis at play aside, may i ask how such non-motivation is even possible?

Although this article doesn’t really deal with it, I’d have thought that feminists main complaint about the porn industry is that it’s misogyny at its worst. The women are all ‘bitches who need a good seeing to’ & they all apparently enjoy being treated as such. Those of us who are adults know this isn’t reality. I do worry for a generation of teenage boys for whom this has become normalised.

How about self-produced porn, OnlyFans etc? Where’s a coercive structure there?

“But the days when feminists were largely against porn are a distant memory. With the rise of the Christian Right in the Eighties — and the rise of home video — so-called “sex-positive feminism” won the day”

I’m sorry, but is she really trying to say that the Christian Right in America is pro-porn? And trying to say it in an article accusing others of not speakimg the truth?

Does ‘history’ now completely trump reality?

Perhaps some statistics go to with the lurid claims would be helpful.

porn is probably not going anywhere but more mainstream….look at my fans popularity……sex drives most everything in life….the puritans have no chance on this issue…

yes.. ” ban” everything…Define ” ban”?

The “rise of the Christian Right in the 80s”. Weird article attempts to make some sort of point. Fails.

An attractive woman such as the one photographed could get as much sex as she wants with whichever attractive partners she chooses. If free to choose, she would only do porn – doing whatever sex act with whoever the director chooses – for the money. The exceptions to this rule are those women who enjoy BDSM.

I’m sure the porn industry is quite awful. So is the textile industry, though we rarely hear about that in the west because those jobs left decades ago. If workers are being exploited, that’s bad, whether it’s in a porn studio or a steel mill. We’ve largely solved the latter through workplace safety laws and the creation of labor unions. It’s unclear to me why these remedies wouldn’t work for the porn industry. Consider the situation with Amazon, also accused of exploiting their workers and unfair labor conditions. Activists are trying to unionize the workers, not ban online shopping. The author is using the sad stories of workers to justify the same old dead horse ‘sex is sacred’ argument. We’ve heard all this before, but moral outrage is not sufficient grounds to ban anything, and it never works anyway. See prohibition, drugs, prostitution, etc.