Five Favorite Films with Sasha Grey

If you watched the video you would notice that she is starring in a mainstream film which by definition makes her an actress and is therefore commenting on the art form associated with her profession. As for being mentally disturbed, I think attempting to claim that society is falling apart because an actress(even porn films involve acting) is interviewed about movies...well you can finish the rest

Of course I watched the video, and of course I am aware that the film is "mainstream".

Whether or not someone is an actress by having sex on camera, is highly debatable and not worth discussing. She was only chosen for the film because she is a porn star, not because she is an actress. Her "profession" is having sex on camera, not making films.

Why was Sasha Grey chosen to select her 5 favorite films over any other actress that has only had one starring role in a movie? Not because of her talent (if you read any reviews of the movie, she gives a very detached performance, essentially playing herself), it is because she is a porn star.

I never claimed that society is falling apart, I was simply commenting that the mainstreaming of porn is not a good thing.

If you have ever read interviews with any famous porn stars (Jenna Jameson for example), they basically say the same thing. They were negatively affected by the industry in one way or another, and if they had other options to make the same money, they probably would have taken them. A society that promotes people having sex for money is never a good thing. It is something that will always exist, but that does not mean that it is not damaging to those involved and the society at large.

Would you object to a sports figure sharing his or her top five movies? How about a politician? Or a computer engineer? It's actually really common for media outlets to interview people about topics that are not their area of expertise.

Nor is it uncommon for someone who's only appeared in one movie - especially when she's the *star* of the movie, and it was made by a well-known director - to show up in the media doing these kinds of relatively trivial spots when the movie comes out. It's called promotion.

If your point is that porn stars should be kept out of view until *you* need something to jack off to, then you're basically sick in the head. By your own admission, you watch porn. You would maintain that people who work to entertain *you* have no legitimate place in society other than the arena of your own masturbation. You'd have made a great slaveholder.

To add to the excellent points made by Hypersquared, your argument about how interviews by a few porn stars are enough to come to a conclusion about the mental state of all porn stars is based on a hasty generalization. Job satisfaction is based on personal experience and if you have ever read/seen an interview by Sasha Grey she discusses how she enjoys her profession because it allows her to explore her sexuality and various forms of self expression. Human sexuality is complex and has been expressed through art for centuries. What constitutes art is open to interpretation, however I see no difference between being paid to have actual sex on camera versus simulated sex as both are attempts at expressing/exploring sexuality. Lastly there is no basis for claiming that the world's oldest profession is damaging to society at large as there is more evidence in support of expressive sexuality than there is against it. Evidence against expressive sexuality is primarily rooted in sexual exploitation and emotional abuse though both of those issues tend to result from societies being sexually oppressive. In other words, those who are "damaged" by pornography are those who treat it like their dirty little secret.

So, you are equating a porn star to a figure skater, or a politician or a computer engineer and arguing that they are all of equal value to society? Or that their respective jobs essentially promote the same things, or make them equally competent to comment on fields "outside their expertise"? You are not making any sort of rational argument. My point was that porn stars should not be interviewed about anything on a news site. Period.

If you can give one example of an actor or actress that had never been had an acting role being given the same attention prior to the release or success of a movie I would be interested to see it. Obviously it is promotion, and why is it good promotion? Because it is salacious. Who is this porn star really, what does she think is a good movie? People are curious about these things, because they are oddities not because anyone thinks her opinion holds any value (hopefully). And if they do, then that is the problem. Making a living off of having sex on camera is not an accomplishment that society (or news outlets) should condone by "mainstreaming" them.

My point as previously stated, is that American's obsession with celebrity at any cost is a negative for society. When the society (or a "new channel") would rather view a top 5 movie list by a woman who's major life accomplishment is having sex on camera rather than any of the thousands of film professors, directors, or other legitimate actors then yes there is a problem.

If you want to attack me directly then you are barking up the wrong tree. Porn will exist whether I view it or not. I would never pay for it and do not. I would have been a hypocrite to say that I have never watched it, but at least I have the intellect to realize that the people who create it as their job in order to pay their bills would be better served if as a we society could provide them something else more meaningful to do with their time.

I do not see the analogy between being a slave holder and the current discussion, unless you are arguing the porn industry and the lifestyle porn stars lead can equate them to slaves, which may be in fact true, although I doubt that was the analogy you are trying to make.

"Evidence against expressive sexuality is primarily rooted in sexual exploitation and emotional abuse though both of those issues tend to result from societies being sexually oppressive."

It is a rare porn star that has neither been sexually or emotionally abused at some point. The reasons young women enter porn are varied and complicated, but I think we can agree that the majority of them come from those type of situations.

Sasha Grey may be saying that now, but I will be curious to see what her opinion is of what she is doing and has done 10-15 years from now. Remember that she barely 21 years old, and at that age, although you are legally an adult, emotionally you are not there yet. People will always attempt to justify their actions in one form or another, so it is not a surprise that is her argument for why she does what she does.

There is a big difference between pushing porn and the sex industry under the rug, and putting it in mainstream media. It already has plenty of attention, everyone is aware of porn, prostitution, etc., my point is that there is no reason to give it or her anymore than it already has.

As for hasty generalizations, that seems to be theme of both of your posts arguing against mine, rather than actually addressing the points I brought up.

You are the one with the fallacious arguments....Asking an individual what films he/she enjoys watching is independent of his/her profession(everyone is capable of enjoying movies). No one is asking her about how to make a movie or asking her for advice about how to act(doing so could be considered an appeal to an inappropriate authority). Your argument that porn stars would be better served if society gave them more meaningful jobs is based partly on circular reasoning, fallacy of composition, appeal to emotion, etc. To avoid sounding like a dictionary I'll just sum this up with....all your arguments are weak and illogical.

All you are doing is trying to equate your opinion for which you lack enough evidence to make claims about every person in a given profession, about how every person in society feels, and what's worse is you are attempting to claim that you have the authority to understand and define the emotions and mental state of an individual whom you have never met. There are no valid points/arguments to address.

Yes, asking someone what movies they enjoy is a question to which the answer to can be derived independent of what their profession is.

Your argument is that her opinion on movies is as valid as anyone's who watches movies (and is not some sort of movie guru). Which I agree with. However, Current does not list the 5 favorite movies of everyone, or actually anyone, other than her and one other actress.

However, to make the connection for you (since you continue to ignore it, despite my repeated assertions), the only reason that this particular person's opinion is "news worthy" is simply because of her profession (random people are not interviewed for the show and asked what their top 5 movies are).

Therefore it is her profession that makes her opinion important according to Current. My argument is simply that her opinion should not be relevant, and that making it relevant, legitimizes her on a mass media scale in a way it should not, based on the inherent negative aspects of porn.

Never made a claim about every person in the profession, nor how society as a whole feels, nor did I claim to "know" this particular person feels. Either actually read what I write or don't bother responding.

korourke said: "So, you are equating a porn star to a figure skater, or a politician or a computer engineer and arguing that they are all of equal value to society? Or that their respective jobs essentially promote the same things, or make them equally competent to comment on fields "outside their expertise"? You are not making any sort of rational argument. My point was that porn stars should not be interviewed about anything on a news site. Period."

I'm not equating a porn star to anything, per se. Nor would I equate a grocery clerk to an athlete, nor an athlete to a heart surgeon. Obviously, different professions have differing values to society, along more than one scale - some are more essential to our daily function; still others better help us better to understand ourselves and our cultural personality.

However, I would never declare that the members of one entire profession be deemed unfit for appearance in the media, unless discussing their specific line of work. That you *do* say that is tantamount to social fascism.

The key point upon which we (those of us who've responded to you) disagree with you is your blanket assumption about "the inherent negative aspects of porn." That description is at the basis of everything you've been arguing, and it's a vague, poorly supported assessment at best, one which On2ndThought very effectively disputed.

That many people who go into sex work have abusive backgrounds is probably true. I won't call it a fact, because I don't have any statistics handy, but even if we assume it's a fact, it is not a fact without exception, and we can't know what Sasha Grey's motivations are, nor those of any individual performer, and we certainly have no place to say that someone should be barred from public exposure because we don't believe what they say about why they chose their (entirely legal) profession.

It's also worth pointing out that our experiences as kids, including potential abuse, can play a role in all kinds of career choices. I'm sure many people become police officers because of being bullied (or not having had enough opportunity to bully others). You'll find people who are driven into every profession as a response to psychological issues, whether its abuse or stress or lack of fufillment. However, that isn't the reason people who object to porn do so. It's just a handy argument (one that by making, by the way, you've put yourself in intellectual company of Tyra Banks). Rather, it's because we, as a society, still think of sex as occupying one of two binary poles: either entirely sacred or entirely filthy, and we can't stand to see it in terms that fall anywhere in between. We need to grow up a little bit.

I agree that all people from all lines of work should be able their voice heard in the media as citizens of a democracy. However, again, my point was that when a person is chosen to voice their opinion based on a profession that is inherently negative/harmful (yes I stand by that, and unfortunately like you said since there are no long term studies on the topic I cannot back it with data, but as an analogy, not all people who people who smoke cigarettes develop cancer, but enough do that the boxes require warning labels ) to a person's psychological well being (and not in all cases, but certainly in enough to garner the general societal negative reaction as a career choice option), it is in effect condoning the profession and is not a good example.

The last two paragraphs you wrote essentially agree with what I am saying, but you make the generalization that all people who argue against porn do not argue against it for the reasons I outlined, but rather because they (generally and my arguments, impliedly) view sexuality from a "polar" perspective, and promptly try and dismiss my arguments by lumping me in with intellectual giants such as Tyra Banks (despite partially agreeing with me).

I do not see where you would get that argument from, as there is nothing I have wrote to suggest that. To state it clearly for you, I do not believe sex to be either completely sacred or filthy. I do know that in general, healthy sexual relationships are monogamous in nature, and are usually tied to intimacy between the partners. That is my starting point only. Obviously there will be lots of people who do not fall into that category and there are plenty of lifestyles and life choices that can make a person happy that are outside of the "norm". I do not dispute that, nor claim that there is anything wrong with that, as it is a simple reality.

However, to give porn stars celebrity status, to push their voice to the media forefront on topics that they have no reason to be discussing (any more so than the average person), is impliedly condoning, legitimizing and promoting what they do.

As for Current not listing the Top 5 movies for a large number of people, the Top 5 list is being done on behalf of Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes has done a top five movies list for more people than I care to list but includes: Bai Ling, John Cena(actor?), Rian Johnson, James Marster, Guillermo Del Toro, Seth Rogen, James Franco, Robert Pattinson, Paris Hilton (Actress?), David Cook(American Idol Winner), Billy Ray Cirrus, Dane Cook,JJ Abrams, James Marsters, Terrence Howard, Kevin Smith, Stefan Blitz, etc. If you listen to the video it states that "up until now she has been known for being an adult film star". Meaning that she is being asked about movies because she is starring in one not because of her previous projects. Claiming that because she has done porn in the past has anything to do with her current acting career is little more than a weak minded attempt at poisoning the well. Your arguments about sexual abuse are weak because they ignore a common cause. Sexual abuse and sexual permissiveness may occur together, however sexual permissiveness can result from other causes such as a heightened sex drive(some women really like sex for no reason other than biology). Equally so you are confusing cause and effect by attempting to argue that her offering a list of five fave films means that people who agree with her are going to go become porn stars. Many people enjoy hearing about new films and could care less about what someone giving a list does for a living. Lastly, Sasha Grey has fans that support what she does. I knew exactly who she was without having to be reminded why she's famous. Stating that her opinion doesn't matter simply because you do not like porn or people who are fans of it is an illogical guilt by association argument.

To korourke:
Thank you for making my day with your insightful and wise comments. :-) Needless to say, as the creator of the AntiPornographyBlog channel at YouTube, where I have uploaded and annotated the "Porn Star Sasha Grey on Tyra" video series, I couldn't agree with your sentiments more. :-)

whoa! that is a double standard. So it is ok to pay into exploitation for your entertainment and then the person has know value because they just showed you there whowho?That reveals huge defects in someone's character and i do not think i am talking about sasha.I would much rather vote for some asshole that put up a few million dollars to advertise lies so i can get to know him better.NOT..... I would trust a porno industry person more than i trust the people that have me starring in there personal porno. Sickinjersey get's fucked by president and the whole healthcare industry. woo woo a gang bang!

Yeah korourke- you are lost my friend.

Yes she has sex on camera. Wow how taboo. She must not be educated or have any opinions either....welcome to the 21st century. Even the so called idealogical philosophers from the past probably had more open orgies than Sasha Gray and they probably even fucked children... but thats ok because they were politicians and educated in a non sexually oppressive time... that just gets left out of the history books.

We are culture oriented around sex, and its people like you who fall into the sheep category of being overly concerned just like the censors want you be. You find this outragous, they say how its detrimental to mainstream, and you follow suit.

The problem is, you seem to have issues with a young girl who has sex on camera talking about her faves, but you're probably stoked to hear crooked politicians like our President and Congress talk their faves though? No? Or celebrities put on a show for the camera but with clothes on? Sorry but at least I pay to see her fuck people, while we all sit here and pay to GET fucked by our government, celebrities, athletes but thats ok. Thats where society is f'd up.

It surprises me how many people even bothered to respond to this.

The way I read this comment was that he think that because someone had sex on camera they have no legitimate opinions on anything other than sex.

It is a senseless comment and did not even warrant the depth of attention it got.

I agree with you korourke. I'm a pretty liberal person minus my views on gun control, immigration and foreign policies, but legitimizing an ex-porn star in a legit business never works nor is it moral. She made a choice to make "having sex on film with hundreds upon hundreds of men, and women," on her own, nobody pushed her into it, she needs and will live with the consequences of that decision. And the fact that many here feel the need to defend her past as to legitimize her present is sickening. A whore is a whore is a whore.

I fail to see why her being a "whore" somehow destroys her ability to have an educated opinion that is worth hearing. I don't have to defend her profession or her decision to do it, (I'm sure she can do that herself), but I will defend her appearance before the public eye: We're so conditioned to listen to what experts tell us that as soon as someone speaks out of their "element" then we shout them down as being illegitimate. Fuck that. Were not insects, we don't need to specialize in one area.

So many people on the internet seem outraged at the fact that this fucking whore bitch thinks she can talk "man talk" with her clothes on and without a cock in her mouth. You atavistic ghouls really think that she's more of a whore than the slime that oozes through our most hallowed halls of power? Everybodys a prostitute; you worry about the state of her soul, well at least she gets paid to do what she evidently enjoys. How many people can say the same?

as much as i agree with that, it dosent take a genius to film people having sex

the directors and producers on the other hand Ehhh?!

Big Lebowski, Superbad, Boondock Saints...so none of those are worth watching because porn stars are "seen" in them? How about any of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_porn_stars_who_appeared_in_mainstream_films

Lame closed minded comment from a prudish person. At least your prejudice is out in the open.

Let us hope that you are only a pawn in your people's cult.

To Newbie Onsecondthought:I'll rephrase that being what I said is not true. The movie can be worth watching, but most likely a porn star who attempts to act in a legit film will not only give a "soap opera" performance, but their presence in the film will have NOTHING to do with how good the film is. Sasha will be a fail as an actress in this film industry, she will eventually go back into porn.

To iloveravi:Yep, I'm a prude! lol I'm a bachelor who lives for one night stands, I smoke marijuana daily, I work in the Metal music industry and I hate religion. Yep, sounds like a prude to me. It is best to have one's prejudice out in the open, I'm honest.

To sickinjersey:Get a shave my friend, your skidrow post-popular Joaquin Phoenix look does not help legitimize your comments. You look like Nick Nolte at a LACJ photo shoot after too many bourbons on the Pacific Coast Highway.

Sasha is a porn actress, she will never amount to anything in any other industry. Why on earth are there people defending her? I suppose if she were to become a high school teacher or maybe a spokesperson for some morning after pill you people would be OK with that as well? lol There is such thing as too liberal. It's no wonder girls are having sex at 10 and younger now, you have the right pushing for abstinence til marriage and the the left giving out condoms in grade schools, with our media shooting images of SEX SEX SEX and the freedom of the internet, the morality of this country is GONE.

So she likes to have sex. Who's to say she doesn't have any other talents? What are your talents?