cmsellers wrote:Grimstone wrote:It has to do with her ability to say no? She obviously feels like she was exploited or pressured somehow into agreeing to do the nude scenes for James Franco's movies.
Getting naked for a job is an entirely different matter than sexual assault.
Many people, probably most, work jobs they'd rather not to pay the bills. I'd feel much more violated at a customer service job being a human punching bag than I would doing a nude scene in film, and people don't take customer service jobs to pursue their dream of becoming actors.
This is the kind of person that argues that all professional porn is rape because the actors and actresses need money to afford food and housing, and thus they were coerced into doing sexual acts with the threat of poverty.
I mean the thing is, this is a totally valid criticism of any wage labor. It's the Marxist perspective. A valuable employee is one who produces more wealth through their efforts than it costs to hire them. This means that the employer gets to enjoy to fruits of this excess labor for no other reason than they possessed the necessary startup capital, a one-time lump sum in exchange for a theoretically eternal revenue source. The employee generally doesn't have a choice to work for someone or not, because if they don't, they run out of money and then starve to death out in the freezing cold. Ergo, the wage laborer is forced through threat of starvation to produce excess wealth for the employer.
Thus, all wage labor is coercive, and tantamount to slavery or serfdom, from the Marxist perspective.
Thing is though, the only way to overturn struggling actresses getting paid scale to whip their mammaries out on camera is to either ban all nudity scenes in media, or lead a glorious popular revolt in order to seize the means of production.