[AlecSchueler]

Source for this? A depiction of an act is very different to an act. Can you name a mainstream movie in which an actor is murdered for real?

> A significant amount of content amounted to torture. The report warned that any kind of so-called contract was void in legal terms, because a person could not consent to torture and sexual exploitation and trafficking.

The women in these videos are actully subject to what is depicted. It's not acting. Can you see how that's different to a Hollywood movie depicting a murder?

[arghwhat]

What is depicted in these works is also acting. Scripted verbal abuse to the point where the recipient takes their own life on screen is considered regular acting in a drama, scripted violence to a certain degree including where mistakes lead to significant or even fatal actor injury is considered regular acting in action movies, and scripted sexual acts themselves are commonly considered regular acting in more "artsy" movies.

The planning, execution, willingness, extend and the necessity thereof are important - context is important.

Watching the work is mostly useful in this setting for identifying if the content is outright illegal (individuals present who should never have been) or if physical harm endured within it reach visibly unacceptable levels (as we for now do not expect CGI here), both which would likely (would it be weird to say hopefully?) be traumatizing for a viewer to experience. To draw the conclusions they wish to draw, I believe they need to study the work environment, not the works - and that this applies to any industry, irrespective of its output.

[AlecSchueler]

> Scripted verbal abuse to the point where the recipient takes their own life on screen is considered regular acting in a drama

Am I reading this right? Are you saying that it's regular acting to be subjected to such a high level of verbal abuse at work that you might take your own life?

> scripted violence to a certain degree including where mistakes lead to significant or even fatal actor injury is considered regular

It feels like a movie script that leads to fatal actor injury would surely be illegal also in the US? Or do you mean accidental injury/death? That's different that the injry or death being an inherent part of the script and intentional thing that is inflicted upon the actress. Otherwise, can you point me towards a single example of a Hollywood movie where an actress was intentionally killed and this was seen as regular/normal by the public?

> scripted sexual acts themselves are commonly considered regular acting in more "artsy" movies.

Yes, that's fine and the study even talks about such cases in a positive light. People can absolutely consent to sex acts! Sex is fun. But under French law people can not consent to be harmed, which is what was seen to be happening in the case in 90% of popular videos. Again, that's actual harm, not simiulated harm.

> What is depicted in these works is also acting.

Yes, to some degree it is. But can you see the difference in acting out being stabbed with the use of an unloaded gun and some fake blood, and being degraded by a queue of 50 men who want to slap you, cum on you and call you a worthless Moroccan who deserves to be treated like this? One of those things is very simulated, the other not so much. Maybe if all the slaps and the ejaculate were faked? Then it could be comparable.

[arghwhat]

> Am I reading this right? Are you saying that it's regular acting to be subjected to such a high level of verbal abuse at work that you might take your own life?

Ah, no - that the work depicts the individual taking abuse for extended periods until they take their life, the actor themselves is alive and well. This is as contrast to the verbal aspect of abuse in these works.

> It feels like a movie script that leads to fatal actor injury would surely be illegal also in the US? Or do you mean accidental injury/death?

The actor taking on intentional and planned mild injury, with very real and non-zero risk of fatality. I did not imply intentional death, maybe poor wording on my end.

> But under French law people can not consent to be harmed,

How does that law apply to violent sports where the goal is injury - preferably temporary - until the other party becomes unable to continue, such as boxing, MMA or even classical martial arts sparring? How does such law deal with martial arts movies where multiple actors take on implicitly harmful acts, that at the very least causes bruising and pain? Old Jackie Chan works might not be what comes to mind in the context of this discussion, but being beaten for a semi-realistic effect by a fellow martial artist is planned and consented harm.

Is consenting to be repeatedly kicked and punched with a certain degree of intensity (higher in older works and with younger actors) in action movies different than consenting to be slapped in the discussed type of work? If a slap is unacceptable, why is being knocked and kicked unconscious in violent sports acceptable?

> But can you see the difference in acting out ...

I immediately think of Nymphomania as appearing far more degrading for the actors than at least content of the discussed type that I am familiar with, and yet that movie is considered by many as a "work of art".

(I never liked that movie myself, but that is not particularly relevant here.)

> Maybe if all the slaps and the ejaculate were faked?

The latter usually is in most works, but for the former I believe it is a matter of intensity and consent. Is the slap only as strong as needed and as agreed to act out the role - like with a kick or punch in early martial arts works - or is it full force with the intent of injury? Are we in full on slap competition or boxing match territory, and if so where is the distinction?

The way I see it, the terms are what matters, and in particular how and why the individual agreed to them. While I won't find myself in those works, there are definitely exists terms where I'd willingly agree to a possibly significant degree of verbal and physical abuse on video. I do not know how one would evaluate what terms are acceptable though - few would worry about me if I was paid 1M USD in such video, but if I accepted 10 USD or felt threatened one might be concerned if my position in life was abused.

[AlecSchueler]

> Ah, no - that the work depicts the individual taking abuse for extended periods until they take their life, the actor themselves is alive and well.

Ah, ok, in this case the definition of violence is that it's not simulated, so these cases are not directly comparable. The pornography they're looking at depicts actresses who do actually take violence against themselves. The blood that is shown is their own blood.

> How does that law apply to violent sports where the goal is injury

This is a better comparison, and one that's still being hotly debated in france. Violent sports like MMA for example were entirely illegal until a few years ago (2019) and are still under much public scrutiny. The debates are still ongoing.

> I do not know how one would evaluate what terms are acceptable though

It's a very difficult question between wanting to allow freedom but also wanting to protect. This dillema is not unique to the pornography industry. Other studies have shown that women in the European Union almost invariably face real-world sexual violence throughout their lives. This is again incomporable to something like Rambo which depicts issues very far removed from most people's lived realities.

I would say from my personal perspectives two things on this question:

1. The violence in pornography could be simulated. More care could be taken to protect the actresses. We could just as easuly be arguing that actors in action movies should be taking actual violence against themselves because boxers consent to the same. But they don't need to? Boxers do need to because it's an actual battle of physical skill

2. As noted above, there is a huge issue with gender based violence against women throughout the world. Almost every woman in France will experience sexual violence throughout their lives. This puts a huge strain on society and makes the issue more pressing than questions like the effects of shooting up aliens in video games which is a very theoritical reality, or even shooting up soldiers which is something that thankfully will only come up in the lives of a small number of people.

[arghwhat]

> The pornography they're looking at depicts actresses who do actually take violence against themselves. The blood that is shown is their own blood.

I think we agree on all counts at this point, but I do hope and believe this style of actual slashing, beating and bleeding would be significantly less than 90% of all material mentioned by the watchdog as abusive, and rather something quite a bit lesser than a majority. This does not make it any better of course, but exaggerating undermines the message.

My personal concern is primarily with those forced or otherwise coerced into an act, as would be the case for those you mention that end unwillingly exposed to it sometime throughout their lives.

I find trying to draw a line between when a slap is legal and when it is not to be flawed - it is only okay if the video title ends in "championship" and is solely an intense act of violence with face-deforming slaps? - and quite incompatible with my pedantic mind. One could argue it should all be outlawed, but as someone who practiced martials arts in a previous life I would lean to the liberal side of allowing consensual violence within some defined framework regardless of final video title.