They get paid to have sex on film, with many different co-stars. Would you consider them to be promiscuous, even if in their personal life they aren't?

JM130ELM wrote:

They get paid to have sex on film, with many different co-stars. Would you consider them to be promiscuous, even if in their personal life they aren't?

The same way I would consider a prostitute promiscuous, yes they are through their career.

In general, no. However, I could see how a promiscuous person could be drawn to the profession. But I'm sure such a person wouldn't last long in the industry.

No I don't, its a job same as most of us have a 9-5. I think a lot of them outside their job live pretty much normal lives, there are exceptions though.

Unless all of their porn scenes are done only with their significant others, then by definition YES.

By the definitions I found, generally, no I wouldn't.

I understand that it's a job....but yeah, they are by definition.

Yes. Their job calls for promiscuity.

Quote :

pro·mis·cu·ous adj
Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.

pro·mis·cu·ous adj
1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.
2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.
3. Casual; random.

I won't argue that no porn actors are promiscuous but I will that all porn actors are. I'm willing to bet that the typical pro isn't being casual or indiscriminate when they're doing their job. In that context I say the frequency or multiple partners doesn't apply. I say the sex on a porn set is typically a lot different than the sex you have with the person you picked up at the bus station. Unless you were the only two naked ones in a room full of technicians and someone else was telling you how to have sex.

Alan Smithee wrote:

I won't argue that no porn actors are promiscuous but I will that all porn actors are. I'm willing to bet that the typical pro isn't being casual or indiscriminate when they're doing their job. In that context I say the frequency or multiple partners doesn't apply. I say the sex on a porn set is typically a lot different than the sex you have with the person you picked up at the bus station. Unless you were the only two naked ones in a room full of technicians and someone else was telling you how to have sex.

A lot of them aren't having filmed sex because they love to have sex. Some of them are just faking it. It's a job. Shot out of sequence sometimes for hours at a time with who knows how many other people in the room standing just out of the shot (no pun intended) making sure the lighting is right & no one is blocking the things people want to see. Saw Brad Benton right in the middle of it actually move a guys hand that was in the way lol. The point isn't so much the sex itself but in it looking right.

I've seen more than one guy struggling just to...maintain. So no.

Honestly, the it's just a job thing is ridiculous to me. Flipping fries at McDonald's is just a job. How does anyone justify, it's just a job? No it isn't.

A common street hooker, that's just a job. They do what they do to survive.

People who do it on film do it because they like sex. Promiscuous you ask? Hell, yeah!

Sorry. Disagree. Not ridiculous (by the definitions I use) but I can accept that I'll be in the minority on this.

Yes

Alan Smithee wrote:

pro·mis·cu·ous adj
Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.

pro·mis·cu·ous adj
1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.
2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.
3. Casual; random.

I won't argue that no porn actors are promiscuous but I will that all porn actors are. I'm willing to bet that the typical pro isn't being casual or indiscriminate when they're doing their job.

With all due respect, I'd argue that the "typical pro" IS!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20099176-10391704.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57497344-10391704/syphilis-scare-halts-porn-industry-filming-in-la-as-health-officials-investigate/

It's kind of difficult to accept this type of argument when shit like this happens in the porn industry. If anything, the fact that you routinely have STD outbreaks among porn stars proves just how casual and indiscriminate their profession is.

Alan Smithee wrote:

In that context I say the frequency or multiple partners doesn't apply. I say the sex on a porn set is typically a lot different than the sex you have with the person you picked up at the bus station. Unless you were the only two naked ones in a room full of technicians and someone else was telling you how to have sex.

How do you figure? I don't see how "why" they are having sex is relevant. The fact is, either you are routinely having sex with multiple sex partners or you aren't. Whether you're doing it for money, pleasure or whatever doesn't seem to matter in terms of whether it is considered "promiscuous" or not. Just because the sex you have is planned in advance doesn't mean it isn't "casual". And just because you're doing it for show doesn't mean it isn't indiscriminate. A porn star's job is to have sex usually multiple times, with multiple partners according to the theme of the title and direction of the director. With the exception of prostitution, being a typical porn actor seems about as indiscriminate as sex can possibly get!

I stand by what I've written.

Quote :

I won't argue that no porn actors are promiscuous but I will that all porn actors are.

Occupational hazards of the profession not withstanding.