What a worthwhile article and important start to a debate that needs to be had, i commend and thank Mr Holloway for contributing it.

The 'Is porn exploitative' debate has always been boiled down to the issue of 'Men exploiting women' or as the modern alleged progressives and porn lobby would have us believe 'porn empowers women'.

This argument has so often ignored the fact that exploitation happens against all kinds of groups that come outside of the mainstream heterosexual community, those who are transgendered or homosexual need to be included in this debate and a critique on the ethics of porn needs to be raised in these communities.

I found this article a little strange, in that the author is trying to tell us that big strong 'heterosexual' males in the porn industry are 'initiating' young 'gay-looking' males into the industry.

Hands up all those heterosexual males out there who would choose to have gay sex under any circumstances? No?

I would suggest that it is big strong homosexual males who 'prey' on younger, weaker males who may be homosexual, or who may be willing to have anal sex for money if they are desperate, or drugged, or forced or both.

I agree that we should be looking out for all people in the porn industry who are 'forced' to be there, or are drugged etc and made to appear in these films.

However, like many female porn actors, many of the gay and straight males choose to be there, because of the money.
That's their choice...

How much "gay" "porn" is industry made, and how much is "amateur"? Why does visual porn recieve so much research attention, and is it more problematic than text based porn that has been around for centuries?

I guess asking these questions makes it sound like I'm located in the industry (not), but there are real questions about what sexuality is and how it is related to sites and practices of representation that are not being addressed in your piece. Pornography is older than its recent industrialisation.

One important insight you are making is that pornography is about denigrating one "type" of person, originally "openly sexual women" (the "porno" in pornography) and by extension "women" (the genre makes women sexually active in specific ways).

But porn is also about sex, and we are all pretty curious about that because it should be hidden. I suspect that the avalanche of pornographic material on the net, and particularly amateur material, will begin to change our sense of sexuality. It is so pervasive, and why anyone pays for material I can't guess. In part it might even end up spreading the word that active sexuality is not just for the airbrushed.

Suzie has summed it up pretty well.

I was also somewhat bemused by

"Broke Straight Boys are an attempt to try and coerce males in financial hardship to put a price on how much they would be willing to sell their sexuality for and perform gay sex acts or more commonly have sex acts performed on them.

Once again this also ties into the issue of the gay men being portrayed as wanting to make themselves submissive to the heterosexual male to pleasure and worship him."

I'm not going to research that one but the description in the first paragraph does not seem to match in any way the author's analysis in the second.

The article seems to be themed around a desperation to blame heterosexual men for gay porn.

As with heterosexual porn feel free to tell us where people are forced into it against their will, feel free to not use it yourself if it bothers you, feel free not to take a job in the industry.

The author does not appear to propose sanctions, perhaps he just wishes to raise concerns but if the intent is to take it further so that the making or use of porn only involving consenting adults becomes again the subject of vilification or criminal sanction then I'm strongly opposed.

I don't have to like or agree with everyone's preferences or tastes but I really don't want those who feel that they can impose their morality on others to regain power wether that morality be in the guise of Mr's Grundy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs_Grundy) or social welfare.

R0bert

I am very pleased to see this article in OLO. Gay porn so frequently become a way out of the discussion on exploitation and it is used as an excuse for commending porn. I have also heard this argument used among pro-porn lesbians who argue that it's okay if it is two women because it is not men exploiting women. Exploitation is exploitation in my book and porn exploits all kinds of different power relations across culture, race (so-called), class, caste, dis/ability, age as well as sex.

These are the reasons why I wrote my essay in Big Porn Inc http://www.spinifexpress.com.au/Bookstore/book/id=217/ about the exploitative basis of porn. In that essay I provide a critique of so-called torture play which is encouraged by some queer theorists in the USA. The book also includes an essay by Christopher Kendall on gay porn. I recommend this essay to you and your readers as one that offers a cogent argument for the issues that you raise in this opinion piece.

Plug over Susan?

I find it more interesting to categorise porn rather than put it all under one umbrella. Only a sith lord talks in absolutes.

Porn in essence is just voyeurism. I agree with the poster that talks about the way amatuer porn is a game changer. Ironiclly in this reality TV era, we have faux amatuer porn now too. They never seem to get the bad-ligting right, I supose the videographers just cant lower their standards and fake it. The actors can fake orgasms, just the tech guys have trouble coming to the party.

I wonder if any of the anti-porn activists would enlighten us on their stance on authentic consentual amatuer porn.

If they find it acceptable, then this issue is not really voyeurism (porn), not even sex, just garden variety industrial relations (worker exploitation) or anti-capitalism.

I suspect that they don't, which would make it the garden variety wowser or victim-feminist issue.