Question for the guys. Dating a porn star? (man, cheat, attractive)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First off, you need to pay better attention. I have exactly two posts in this thread, neither of which made a single claim.
As for my factual basis, where to start? We could start with the fact that I live in a city that competes with Miami for being the porn capital of the East Coast and that I've spent enough time in the strip clubs and social circles to have met some of these women first hand. I could point to the three former classmates of mine who are currently doing hardcore porn and two that are current or former full nude strippers. For more off hand experiences I could point you to any of the biographical and autobiographical pieces on various porn stars through the years (Jenna Jameson had a NYT Best Seller just a few years ago) or some of the investigative journalism pieces focusing on the matter.
You are right; you haven't made any claims directly. You have, however, agreed that itshim's claims are obvious and beyond debate. So you are, implicitly, making the same claims.
Where you live is irrelevant. Your evidence would be just as good whether you live in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska or in the San Fernando Valley. As for the full-nude strippers you know, they're also irrelevant unless they're also porn actresses.
And for every porn actress you've met/known, there are more than a dozen you haven't. But the claims you defended about how many men they've slept with, or how emotionally inured they might be, were made about all of them. You're way over-generalizing from the few you know to the many more you don't. The same is true for the auto/biographies you cite; it's a hasty generalization. Just because Brooke Shields had post-partum depression, that doesn't mean all models get post-partum depression.
Oh, and itshim, the same goes for you, since you made the direct claims in the first place.
Full-blown Madonna/wh**ore syndrome in other words!
Perhaps. I would liken it more to wartime, when soldiers regard the enemy as subhuman. It may not be guilt that creates the dissonance, but there is dissonance there that motivates the characterization of porn actresses.
It's also interesting that I've never heard anyone make a similar disparagement of the men who make porn movies. Actually, that raises an interesting question....
Respondeant feminae! (Let the women answer!): Would you date a man who worked as a porn actor?
You are right; you haven't made any claims directly. You have, however, agreed that itshim's claims are obvious and beyond debate. So you are, implicitly, making the same claims.
Where you live is irrelevant. Your evidence would be just as good whether you live in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska or in the San Fernando Valley. As for the full-nude strippers you know, they're also irrelevant unless they're also porn actresses.
And for every porn actress you've met/known, there are more than a dozen you haven't. But the claims you defended about how many men they've slept with, or how emotionally inured they might be, were made about all of them. You're way over-generalizing from the few you know to the many more you don't. The same is true for the auto/biographies you cite; it's a hasty generalization. Just because Brooke Shields had post-partum depression, that doesn't mean all models get post-partum depression.
Oh, and itshim, the same goes for you, since you made the direct claims in the first place.
What I'm getting from this is that you are actually giving these porn stars the benefit of the doubt and that most of them may be loyal, well adjusted, emotionally healthy women who are just as great a catch as the girl next door. Do you live under a rock Rockjock?
You are right; you haven't made any claims directly. You have, however, agreed that itshim's claims are obvious and beyond debate. So you are, implicitly, making the same claims.
And what were his claims again? Let's review.
Quote:
Besides, a lot of "porn stars" have slept with atleast 100+ partners
Anyone disputing this is either ignorant or arguing for the sake of arguing. You can go over to Freeones or any of a handful of other sites, lookup any well known porn star you choose and quickly verify this to be correct. Even the lesser known ones can easily approach this number, and that's not even counting the ones they have had outside of work.
Quote:
and are desensitized from the intimacy of 1-1 sex.
Another one easily verifiable. Many porn stars (men and women) have come out and openly admitted this, including Tyler Knight who I discussed this with on the Rudius Media forum. This isn't even a phenomenon limited to the porn world either, which makes disputing it even more laughable.
Quote:
Where you live is irrelevant. Your evidence would be just as good whether you live in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska or in the San Fernando Valley.
Once again, you need to pay better attention. You asked about my first hand experience and I used my location to illustrate my proximity to this activity. Last time I checked, Prudhoe Bay and Exton, PA weren't exactly big players in the porno market.
Quote:
As for the full-nude strippers you know, they're also irrelevant unless they're also porn actresses.
One was, but I agree that strippers are a different animal. They're generally ****ed up in the head too, but not as badly as the ones who actually do the hardcore porn.
Quote:
And for every porn actress you've met/known, there are more than a dozen you haven't.
And do you really think that they're all that much different? Or let me guess, I've met the only ones that are actually damaged goods right?
Quote:
But the claims you defended about how many men they've slept with, or how emotionally inured they might be, were made about all of them.
You're way over-generalizing from the few you know to the many more you don't. The same is true for the auto/biographies you cite; it's a hasty generalization. Just because Brooke Shields had post-partum depression, that doesn't mean all models get post-partum depression.
Well now there is a revelation! The position is wrong because someone, somewhere, doesn't fit it. Newsflash buddy, almost nothing is ever absolute. It's called generalization for a reason and both the snippet you quoted and my post respect that fact.
Women that are not porn stars, that are attractive and have a high sex drive are inherently always looking for a better deal, so it is only a matter of time before one cheats on you .....butterfaces cheat too......yeah, but who cares? (OLD Abbott and Costello stand up routine)
Anyone disputing this is either ignorant or arguing for the sake of arguing. You can go over to Freeones or any of a handful of other sites, lookup any well known porn star you choose and quickly verify this to be correct. Even the lesser known ones can easily approach this number, and that's not even counting the ones they have had outside of work.
An ad hominem attack? Really? That truly is beneath you.
All the examples at all of those sites still have the same problem: they are a small amount of data for a conclusion about a large group of people, most of whom are not very likely to be similar to the people you see listed there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
Another one easily verifiable. Many porn stars (men and women) have come out and openly admitted this, including Tyler Knight who I discussed this with on the Rudius Media forum. This isn't even a phenomenon limited to the porn world either, which makes disputing it even more laughable.
And all the interviews you can cite don't back up your claim. You're assuming all porn actors and actresses feel the same way. Your evidence doesn't establish that; it only shows that the people interviewed feel that way. You're assuming that there aren't any porn actresses who feel differently, and you don't know that. You're reaching way beyond what your evidence shows.
Whether it's limited to the porn world or not is also irrelevant. Your claims were about porn actresses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
Once again, you need to pay better attention. You asked about my first hand experience and I used my location to illustrate my proximity to this activity. Last time I checked, Prudhoe Bay and Exton, PA weren't exactly big players in the porno market.
That's why I used Prudhoe Bay as a contrast to a big player in the porn industry, didn't I? You seem to have missed that point. And your over-generalizations are are as invalid there as in Clearwater, FL, or Omaha, NE, or anywhere else.
You've been exposed to a very small subset of a large group of people. And you're drawing conclusions based on that very small sample that may or may not hold in the larger group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
One was, but I agree that strippers are a different animal. They're generally ****ed up in the head too, but not as badly as the ones who actually do the hardcore porn.
They both may be messed up in the head, but you can't use strippers to support a claim about porn actresses any more than you can use cats to prove a claim about dogs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
And do you really think that they're all that much different? Or let me guess, I've met the only ones that are actually damaged goods right?
Thank you for proving my point. Your problem isn't that you've met damaged ones. If you had claimed that all porn actresses were happy, healthy and well-adjusted, you'd have exactly the same problem. You've met only a few, certainly not the majority of porn actresses in the world. You're assuming they're all the same, and your evidence doesn't prove that they are. You're over-generalizing to a very large group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
Well now there is a revelation! The position is wrong because someone, somewhere, doesn't fit it. Newsflash buddy, almost nothing is ever absolute. It's called generalization for a reason and both the snippet you quoted and my post respect that fact.
But that didn't stop you from making an absolute claim. And that's why generalizing from a very small number of observations to a very large group is a fallacy. You don't know whether the porn actresses you've met are representative of the whole group. You're only assuming they are.
And newsflash to you: your original statement was that itshim's claims weren't debatable. And here we are debating them. I win.
An ad hominem attack? Really? That truly is beneath you.
You'd have a point if I had actually launched an ad hominem attack at you. Unfortunately I didn't, so now all you did is make yourself look way too eager to play the victim.
Just FYI, the wiki page on ad hominem has some great examples of actual attacks. Check out so you know what you're talking about next time.
Quote:
All the examples at all of those sites still have the same problem: they are a small amount of data for a conclusion about a large group of people, most of whom are not very likely to be similar to the people you see listed there.
Who the hell taught you logic? Arguably the best archive for pornographic material is a "small sample?" Do you even follow the porn industry at all, or are you doing exactly what I predicted and just arguing for the sake of arguing? For your sake, I'm hoping it's the later.
Just FYI, here are some I pulled up on Freeones. Granted there are duplicates in there, but even then it easily blows your stance out of the water.
Sasha Grey - 653 listings
Gianna Michaels - 835
Belladonna - 218
Sierra Skye - 168
Barbie Cummings - 203
Hilary Scott - 685
Tera Patrick - 397
Quote:
And all the interviews you can cite don't back up your claim. You're assuming all porn actors and actresses feel the same way. Your evidence doesn't establish that; it only shows that the people interviewed feel that way. You're assuming that there aren't any porn actresses who feel differently, and you don't know that. You're reaching way beyond what your evidence shows.
Quote:
You've been exposed to a very small subset of a large group of people. And you're drawing conclusions based on that very small sample that may or may not hold in the larger group.
Quote:
Thank you for proving my point. Your problem isn't that you've met damaged ones. If you had claimed that all porn actresses were happy, healthy and well-adjusted, you'd have exactly the same problem. You've met only a few, certainly not the majority of porn actresses in the world. You're assuming they're all the same, and your evidence doesn't prove that they are. You're over-generalizing to a very large group.
Quote:
But that didn't stop you from making an absolute claim. And that's why generalizing from a very small number of observations to a very large group is a fallacy. You don't know whether the porn actresses you've met are representative of the whole group. You're only assuming they are.
I just want to point out the astounding hilarity of someone who wrongly claims to have been the victim of an ad hominem attack turning around in the same exact post and using the logical fallacy of building up a strawman argument. If I hadn't spent so much time around gaming and sports forums I'd have a tough time believing it.
Go sit yourself down at the kiddie debate table, newb. You've got away to go before you can step across from me and hold your own.
The number of people one has had sex with with in no way correlates with how desensitized they are to future sex or a future loving relationship.
Each individual circumstance is different, and on top of it, porn is an acting job where emotions are not involved, a relationship is intimate. Huge difference between making love and screwing for the camera.
[quote=Bosco55David;19735512]You'd have a point if I had actually launched an ad hominem attack at you. Unfortunately I didn't, so now all you did is make yourself look way too eager to play the victim.
Just FYI, the wiki page on ad hominem has some great examples of actual attacks. Check out so you know what you're talking about next time./quote]
Perhaps you should heed your own advice. From the Wikipedia page on ad hominem fallacies:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.[1] The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]
In order to become a fallacy, the insult would need to given as a reason for believing some conclusion, for example, "X is idiotically ignorant [of politics], so why should we listen to him now?"
Your statement that "[a]nyone disputing this is either ignorant or arguing for the sake of arguing" is, specifically, an appeal to motive, a special case of ad hominem circumstantial.
Also from Wikipedia, on appeal to motive:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be a logical fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
Who the hell taught you logic?
Someone better at teaching logic than the one who taught you, apparently. Because for all your bluster, you have yet to refute my argument, or prove your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
Arguably the best archive for pornographic material is a "small sample?" Do you even follow the porn industry at all, or are you doing exactly what I predicted and just arguing for the sake of arguing? For your sake, I'm hoping it's the later.
Just FYI, here are some I pulled up on Freeones. Granted there are duplicates in there, but even then it easily blows your stance out of the water.
Sasha Grey - 653 listings
Gianna Michaels - 835
Belladonna - 218
Sierra Skye - 168
Barbie Cummings - 203
Hilary Scott - 685
Tera Patrick - 397
I just want to point out the astounding hilarity of someone who wrongly claims to have been the victim of an ad hominem attack turning around in the same exact post and using the logical fallacy of building up a strawman argument. If I hadn't spent so much time around gaming and sports forums I'd have a tough time believing it.
Your argument is: You've met some porn actresses, and they've all had 100+ partners and been inured to intimacy. therefore, all porn actresses have slept with 100+ partners and been inured to intimacy.
As evidence you've listed seven out of...how many porn actresses are there in the industry? Because they aren't all in Freeones. Or in any other database you can name. And unless you've checked them all, you don't know whether your claims about them are true, even for the actresses listed in that database. You've merely assumed that all porn actresses are like the ones you've met. And however many that might be, it's still a small, not necessarily representative sample of all porn actresses.
In fact, you're the one committing a straw man fallacy. The only thing Freeones (or any other such database) can prove is how many partners they've had on film, and then only for the films in their database. It can't prove whether any of them are inured to intimacy as you've claimed. So one of your conclusions can't be proven by your evidence, and the other is a hasty generalization from what it can prove...assuming it proves it in the first place.
You've also made a hasty generalization with the auto/biographies you've cited before. They prove your claims only for those people about whom they are writen, and no one else.
You've made hasty generalizations. And I've called you out for it by pointing them out.
Since you like Wikipedia, perhaps you should have read the entry on hasty generalization. From its entry:
Go sit yourself down at the kiddie debate table, newb. You've got away to go before you can step across from me and hold your own.
You have yet to actually prove anything you've claimed, or refute my argument. I've not only held my own, I've handed you yours.
Plus, you said itshim's claims weren't debatable. And yet here we are debating them. I win.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
