digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at news.bbc.co.uk

The Men Who Are Paid to Watch Porn for a Living

news.bbc.co.uk — It's 2008 and sex seems to be everywhere. So who holds the line between permissiveness and obscenity? What is obscene these days? And how do those people entrusted to make these calls cope with the harrowing work?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • oldcrows40, on 06/21/2008, -3/+112*fap fap fap fap fap*

    What? Just doing my job.
    • 36CrzyFsts, on 06/21/2008, -12/+0I suppose I'm in the wrong line of work. What am I saying I work for a electronics retail company, I didn't need this article to tell me that.

      Wack-on
  • colourclassic, on 06/21/2008, -1/+38**Quits Job**
  • mal1964, on 06/21/2008, -0/+9Waste of money.
  • computershack, on 06/21/2008, -1/+73Can you imagine how boring that would get after a while? I imagine them sitting there going "Oh yeah and here comes the plumber. Oh look, there go the trousers. Quelle Suprise. Not."
    Seriously, I wonder how much it actually puts them off sex.
    • Llanowar, on 06/21/2008, -3/+8What? You don't watch 8 hours of porn a day? I thought every guy did that.
      • jackal42, on 06/21/2008, -0/+39Only 8 hours? Are you trying to quit porn or something?
      • macbookpromat, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Is it possible to quit porn? Isn't that a bit excessive?
      • MtheoryX, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2I only need about 5 minutes...10 minutes if there's a lot of talking.
    • petebert, on 06/21/2008, -2/+18boring no, raw penis yes.
    • flashback99, on 06/21/2008, -6/+9Hi, believe it or not, both you and I are called human beings. We're built for sex. If sex was boring, why do 50 year olds still want it? Why does viagra exist? Why are people so uptight about sex all around the world? It's anything but boring!
      • Coy0te, on 06/21/2008, -2/+12Hi, believe it or not, both you and I are called human beings. We're built for sex... but not for sitting in a room watching sex for hours on end with no physical or emotional stimulus. So please step off your high horse and stop playing "captain sexual liberation" and realize he wasn't even attacking sex.
        • flashback99, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Nice. So tell me, are we built for using digg 24 hours a day, working 9-9? Are we built for beating world records?

          We can do whatever the ***** we please as long as it doesnt harm anyone.

          So effectively your argument is ***** pandering. And how the ***** is telling people that they are made for sex being on a "high horse" or "playing captain liberation"?

          He said sex was boring. I proved it wasnt.

          Now, what the ***** are you on about again?
    • kaniz, on 06/21/2008, -1/+6I worked at an online porn company before, and part of my job was watching videos after they had been encoded to ensure they would play/stream properly, audio was working correctly, and that nothing got by that was illegal. (4 fingers is ok, but 5 fingers or more is breaking some obscenity law).

      It's far less entertaining than you think it would be. There is allot of /really/ bad porn out there, and think out of my time doing it - I was only mildly turned on once or twice.
  • rockrapdude, on 06/21/2008, -9/+3There is one reviewer, who gives boners, not stars, to pornos. He would see the flick and count how many stiffys he would have had during a movie. More than ten = good one; one semi-flaccid = really crap one.
    • Fitness03, on 06/21/2008, -0/+10Punishment for a movie that gives him one constant rager over ten separate ones? That's stupid man.
  • Sputs, on 06/21/2008, -4/+15If you watched that much porn it would end up doing nothing for you, too much of a good thing?
    • smellytim, on 06/21/2008, -1/+7while i dont get payed for my work, i can tell you it doesnt get old.
  • DJSyphilis, on 06/21/2008, -8/+4Brings a whole new meaning to "Not Safe For Work"
    • webkami, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5Do you mean "Safe for Work"?
      cause it is for them.....
    • jgzman, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2In a job like that, what would really be NSFW?
    • glinsvad, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1And "work-related misconduct"
      • positron, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3I'm telling you, the goat was asking for it man!
  • donkeySays, on 06/21/2008, -4/+58License to Fap.
    • trixterIreland, on 06/21/2008, -2/+18Agent 69 your license to fap has been revoked!
    • baylat, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2We need you agent Double A.
      • Breepee, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3I think I'd like a visit from agent double D.
  • richbradshaw, on 06/21/2008, -0/+47The interesting thing about this article is that they say that they never become desensitised to the films they watch, and that each horrific scene in a film is just as bad when watching it again.

    If that's true, why does it matter if people watch it - if you don't ever get desensitised, then surely the argument that it's unsuitable to watch doesn't really hold...

    Debate!
    • bradd12, on 06/21/2008, -11/+4Oh, I've got it under control... I'm a master debater.

      Wow, that was bad.
    • fhernand, on 06/21/2008, -0/+14Comment from the article:
      Of interest: The definition of "Obscene" is likely to corrupt or deprave the viewer. And the "expert" on the panel says "you don't become desensitised to it. What is not right is never right." So, by not being "depraved and corrupted" by watching the "Nasty stuff", it proves it's not obscene? Or do they believe everyone else is inherently more corruptable than them?

      Rather than have the lofty sounding ideals, why not simply state the law as "distasteful to the prevailing morality of society in its current state"? Just as fuzzy, and probably more accurate.
      Rich, Bristol
    • flashback99, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Typically its feminists who seem to believe that all porn = sanctioned rape which is pretty stupid since there's this little thing called consent that separates criminal, hurtful behaviour from two legally consenting adults who just want to have some fun.

      The other idiots are the religious people who seem to think that our "god-given" bodies should be a source of eternal shame and embarrassment. Well, ok most definitely not every religious person, but we all know who the guilty parties are.

      The recent Penn & Teller episode on porn stresses the fact that there is no scientific evidence that proves that porn is detrimental to wellbeing.
      • MtheoryX, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2"The recent Penn & Teller episode on porn stresses the fact that there is no scientific evidence that proves that porn is detrimental to wellbeing."

        4chan, specifically /b/, however, will totally ***** you up for life.
        • flashback99, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1you have to be at least slighty ***** up to visit, let alone stay on /b/ so it's a circular argument :P
      • YukosEyes, on 06/21/2008, -1/+0I don't think you have ever read or listened to Feminist arguments regarding porn but that you think you still happen to think you know what a Feminist thinks. The majority of Feminists have a problem with pornography that fuses sex with violence and involves underage sex, and that is exactly what the Obscene Publications Squad and BBFC said they are looking for. The problem is that violent rape, underage sex, and sex-slave labor are still serious problems in this world, more pervasive than perhaps you think they are.

        There have been thousands of social psychological studies done (by male and female researchers) on how violent stimulous affects people's thought and BEHAVIOR after one viewing, and more severely over time. That is not to say that there is a range of severity of behavior -- there is, everybody is different. Technically, you don't become desensitized to it, because violence always serves as a cognitive/physiological cue, but the way that we process it changes, subsequently affecting our behavior. Unfortunately, that is a misleading quote because most readers won't separate "moral" desensitization from cognitive/physiological desensitization.
        • flashback99, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Strawman argument. We're arguing about porn here, not violence or child abuse.

          You effectively proved my point by meandering from Porn, (consensual sex on film) to violence, rape and child abuse (none of which are consensual)

          I'm afraid I'm digging you down.
    • YukosEyes, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1Technically, you don't become desensitized to it, because violence always serves as a cognitive/physiological cue, but the way that we process it changes, subsequently affecting our behavior. Unfortunately, that is a misleading quote because most readers won't separate "moral" desensitization from cognitive/physiological desensitization.
    • oldgal, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Could never figure out why it's O.K. for censors to read/watch stuff and determine that it's not O.K. for everybody else. If they are "saving" us, then aren't they harming themselves? If not, what's the point?
      • YukosEyes, on 06/21/2008, -1/+0Yes, they are harming themselves, but they can't admit that when asked directly about it or else ethics committees would be on them. Many feel it is for a good cause.
        • flashback99, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I get the distinct feeling that you are simply making ***** up.
        • YukosEyes, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0Any time there's academic research being done, there is an ethics committee that has to approve it, ever since Zimbardo's Prison Experiment from the Vietnam Era. There is also a lot of existing research, with diverse designs and variations, that show that violence serves as a cognitive/physiological cue, which affects our behavior. This effect becomes more significant over time with exposure. If the censors admitted to being affected, the entire project would be shut down for being unethical and the research couldn't be done, but it is also important to keep in mind that even as people display through their behavior that they have been affected by violence, they are not always consciously aware of it. It is possible that the censors don't know. I was just saying that if they do, they likely wouldn't tell because they wouldn't have a job and the project would be shut down.
  • azizrulez, on 06/21/2008, -4/+3damn i wish i had that job.
    no job is as awesome as watching porn for money
    • Arkz, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1i dunno.. id like to be a taste tester of luxury foods.. mmm
    • KegBol, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Um, (if you're so inclined) how about being a porn star? They get paid to actually do what most of us spend a fair amount of time and money chasing.
  • kingo123, on 06/21/2008, -7/+1If you work hard enough, you will become a porn 'master debater' too.
  • daxsymbiont, on 06/21/2008, -1/+81What's so good about that?

    Porn is utterly boring after a wank.
  • cslawren, on 06/21/2008, -0/+33I despise this censoring tactic. I may be morally opposed to necrophilia, bestiality, etc etc, but who is an organization with government backing to say "you can't watch that, its desensitizing to you and will lower your moral code"? Isn't that a choice that the individual gets to make? Being offended by something is what I consider the price of living in a free society. I'd rather be offended than be shielded from things as though I'm a child.
    • trixterIreland, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4Further the first amendment in the US does not allow for censorship of obscene material. Nor does it allow for censorship with the "truth in advertising" laws.

      My recommendation is to either remove the censorship or ratify the constitution to allow for it.

      Its a dangerous road when you start saying that while the constitution does not allow this but we are going to do it anyway, you end up with bills being proposed that violate other amendments such as the 4th with the recent bill that all transactions online have to be reported to the government (Dodd's addition to the federal bill), with tracking devices being requested in cars (california), with many other thing.

      Which rights will you allow to be taken?
      First amendment? already impaired
      Second amdnemdnt - "... the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? already impaired
      Fourth? They are trying and in some instances succeeding
      Fifth? 1040 requires you to waive that to sign your return
      Sixth? due process is a joke with eminent domain what it is, speedy trials dont happen, and people are held without a trial.
      Eight? Cruel and unusual punishment is done in many domestic jails that is considered torture elsewhere (such as using dogs in the jail to scare inmates, passaic county jail in NJ does that at least once a day, waking people up constantly happens too).
      10th? HAHAHA this hasnt existed for a long time, it states anything not specifically allowed by the constitution for the feds, they cant do, Article I Section 8 lists what the legislature is allowed to write laws about. This is the most abused provision.

      So really unless the people stand up and demand that the constitution be upheld it wont be.
      • Calinthalus, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4If the first amendment should stop "truth in advertising" laws, shouldn't con artists, spammers and phishers all be legal? It's basically telling a lie in order to trick someone out of their money.

        I agree with you on most of the rest of them...but I think the public good demands certain abridgments to the first amendment. Fire in a crowded theater as it were.
      • rald84, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1obscenity is NOT protected by the first amendment

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

        though it has only been enforced in recent years with bush's war on pornography. its too bad since the first amendment says "blah blah NO LAW blah blah"
    • flashback99, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5"I'd rather be offended than be shielded from things as though I'm a child."

      This is a damn good point. Actually people are offended by reality. That's why they create these personal realities that omit the parts of the real world they deem "bad". The problems start when they start to believe that their personal reality applies to the real world.

      About the tactics..consent is the important part. A dead person can't consent and we're not really sure about animals..!?! definitely a grey area there.

      Definitely the government should stop people ***** dead people who havent given consent, it's less about desensitization and more about consent/law.
    • brad3378, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1We already have a government that desensitizes us to war atrocities, so I don't see what the big deal is about watching video containing two girls and a cup.
  • cuoops, on 06/21/2008, -0/+13Surprisingly, perhaps, the only DVD rejected outright by the BBFC was a box set of season two of the TV series Weeds. That was not because of sex or violence, but a scene was seen as promoting drug use.
    • flashback99, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2If the law was different, this would effectively be product placement!
    • endlessoul, on 06/21/2008, -1/+3No, really? A TV show called Weeds having drug use?

      News to me.
  • Realnemesis, on 06/21/2008, -0/+7I'd be so rich....
  • gameradam, on 06/21/2008, -0/+13This job sounds to good to be true. There has to be a catch?

    Ohhh god please no Shemales!
    • Darkangel754, on 06/21/2008, -1/+2It's all gay porn
    • Seth024, on 06/21/2008, -0/+13The moment you start the job, everyone give their worst dvds to you to get you started: granny porn, gay gangbangs, deformed shemales, midget beastiality...
      • dafelst, on 06/21/2008, -1/+5You say that like it's a bad thing!

        Sign me up!
        • twisth, on 06/24/2008, -0/+0/me hands davefelst reels of sepia-toned "Westward Expansion" porn. The Louisiana Purchase really blew the lid off that market, eh?
  • HallenbeckJoe, on 06/21/2008, -1/+10OGC
  • CuriousDan, on 06/21/2008, -2/+1It really must suck. Once I read an article about a live show ticket seller or brothel bouncer or whatever - he said that the first days were awesome but after that it was like watching wrestling. And boring, too.
  • Haoie, on 06/21/2008, -0/+6You know how people who work in chocolate factories eventually get sick of eating the stuff?

    I wonder if that sort of rationale would ever apply here.
  • lilq87, on 06/21/2008, -9/+0Can you imagine how boring that would get after a while? I imagine them sitting there going "Oh yeah and here comes the plumber. Oh look, there go the trousers. Quelle Suprise. Not."
    Seriously, I wonder how much it actually puts them off sex.
    • AussieFox, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4Congratulations, you've managed to copy and past another persons comment.
    • Magnolit, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Yeah seriously, what the *****?
  • trixterIreland, on 06/21/2008, -0/+6I know the article is about the UK but similar things exist in the US.

    The first amendment in the US does not allow for censorship of obscene material. Nor does it allow for censorship with the "truth in advertising" laws.

    My recommendation is to either remove the censorship or ratify the constitution to allow for it.

    Its a dangerous road when you start saying that while the constitution does not allow this but we are going to do it anyway, you end up with bills being proposed that violate other amendments such as the 4th with the recent bill that all transactions online have to be reported to the government (Dodd's addition to the federal bill), with tracking devices being requested in cars (california), with many other thing.

    Which rights will you allow to be taken?
    First amendment? already impaired
    Second amdnemdnt - "... the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? already impaired
    Fourth? They are trying and in some instances succeeding
    Fifth? 1040 requires you to waive that to sign your return
    Sixth? due process is a joke with eminent domain what it is, speedy trials dont happen, and people are held without a trial.
    Eight? Cruel and unusual punishment is done in many domestic jails that is considered torture elsewhere (such as using dogs in the jail to scare inmates, passaic county jail in NJ does that at least once a day, waking people up constantly happens too).
    10th? HAHAHA this hasnt existed for a long time, it states anything not specifically allowed by the constitution for the feds, they cant do, Article I Section 8 lists what the legislature is allowed to write laws about. This is the most abused provision.

    So really unless the people stand up and demand that the constitution be upheld it wont be.
    • Meesher, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0"The first amendment in the US does not allow for censorship of obscene material."

      "Its a dangerous road when you start saying that while the constitution does not allow this but we are going to do it anyway..."

      The dangerous road you refer to has already been traveled. While it might be unconstitutional to censor obscene material, there are federal laws in place now that make it possible for authorities to prosecute those who distribute obscene material. Granted, the law seems mainly to be in place to prevent such material from being given to minors, but the tools are their for the Feds to act if they choose. I believe there was a recent case where they did just that, prosecuting some adult video company for violating federal obscenity laws. They did so in a state (Utah, maybe?) where community standards--one of the elements used in the law to define what is obscene--would make it easier to get a conviction. Not sure what the outcome was.
    • MtheoryX, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1deja vu
  • surfacewound, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5Dugg for, "...depictions of sexual gratification through lavatorial functions."
  • NecroDigg, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3They should hire digg users to do this.
    • dazparkour, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Digg supplies Free beta testers. Why pay em when they would volunteer.
  • over9k, on 06/21/2008, -16/+1I wonder if they have to watch child porn as well. Now THAT'S a dream job. Legally watching delicious CP.
    • dazparkour, on 06/21/2008, -1/+3"Hi, take a seat over there."?

      I imagine you are trying to be funny, because someone that stupid probably wouldn't pass the captcha, but you obviously didn't quite see how low you were going to get burried.
      • MtheoryX, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1There's a captcha? Now I know I've been on here too long.
    • DigitusAnonymus, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4I wonder if I could shoot you. Now THAT'S a dream job. Legally killing you.
  • Elliottx, on 06/21/2008, -1/+4This job goes hand in hand with mammography.

    ...Punned.
  • senatorpjt, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1"It defines obscenity as "content whose effect will tend to deprave and corrupt those likely to read, see or hear" it.
    And yet they have people watching it as a full-time job, that are apparently not corrupt and depraved? How do they know that they won't become corrupt and depraved when they get hired?
    Still, sounds like an awesome job. I'm pretty much impossible to offend, so I could sit there all day and watch this stuff and not get affected, only problem is I'd end up saying nothing was too obscene - unless there was some sort of objective criteria that I had to rank the stuff on.
  • Claw787, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1And yet, 2 girls 1 cup scene leaked?
    • Bugsdigg, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Yes, it "leaked"; it wasn't approved for sale in Britain, which is what this article is talking about.
  • retawd, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Pedlars? When will those Britishes learn to talk American good?
  • gprimeca, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0Take it from someone who works in the online adult industry, working in porn is great! For me i still love to watch porn after over 2 years in the biz.
  • TEWE9876, on 06/21/2008, -2/+0XXXCHURCH.COM!!
  • Bugsdigg, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2A friend of mine (who already had a background in consumer law) once interviewed for that job. Very little of what they watch is ordinary, legal porn; they're generally only asked to assess stuff that's already been complained about or has come from sources with a history of dodgy output.

    During the interview, the candidates were asked to assess five films and make notes on exactly which laws were being broken by each video. Two were pretty hardcore but totally legal (except for a copyright infringement in one), the other three were pretty horrifying. My friend didn't want to talk about the details, but they involved animals, rape (if it was simulated it was *very* convincing) and a "star" who really looked underage. Two of the job candidaes walked out of the interview because they couldn't take what was onscreen.

    Really, the guy in the article is right - this is not stuff that 99% of the population would enjoy watching.
  • redfred18t, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4Dirty Jobs w/ Mike Rowe

    "Today, I'm on the set of ________. I'll be fapping to test how good this movie is. It's a dirty job, someone's gotta do it"
  • shadeOfGrey, on 06/21/2008, -0/+25I get paid to watch porn all day. My boss just doesn't know it.
  • kelder27, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Buried: for letting the government tell you what you can watch.
    • KegBol, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Dugg: For knowing that the government lets me wank my little mind out over redtube and youporn.
  • Fubarepublic, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0Oh my wrist hurts,,,,
  • horhay2000, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0who's to say that the people censoring our material are the best ones for the job? Seems to me like it's shooting fish in a barrel. Someone complains and that's taken more seriously than the silent majority who think there's nothing wrong with it. Unless it's a bona fide criminal offense committed in the viewing material then adults should be allowed to make their own decisions about what materials they view.
  • colasrtney, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Stop screwing around and get your hand back on your penis.
  • blackturtleus, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Looking through the comments I get the impression that there are two kinds of people: 1) Those who can never get enough, and 2) Those who are easily satiated. I'm not sure if they are actually capable of understanding one another. Each probably thinks that there is something wrong with the other.
  • raydeen, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2With a little luck, you could actually work two jobs at once. Porn reviewer AND sperm donor.
  • HomieG6189, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2I don't wanna read about the people who fap to it. I wanna read an article about the people that are in it. That's gotta get interesting. Although, after your 500th girl I bet it gets pretty boring.
    • Myonosken, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Yeah it probably does "Was popular in high school due to their promiscuous nature....unfortunately was regularly abused at home due to an alcoholic father".
  • iamjames, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1i get paid to help adult sites with their store front so i'm getting paid to look at adult sites all day too.

    Nothing is NSFW in my position however we still went through sexual harassment training because everyone with the company does
  • kaplanfx, on 06/21/2008, -0/+21) Fap Fap Fap
    2) ???
    3) Profit
  • freedomwv, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1That is crazy. The UK government actually pays people to sit down and watch porn all day.
  • Zippo, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2A better job would be actually making the porn. And better yet, starring in it.
  • shutuparian, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1what's obcene these days?
    two girls, one cup.
  • PistachioBelly, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0Different people have different ideas of what constitutes obscene. For example I may think it obscene for a person to have oral sex with a donkey. My grandmother may think it obscene for a lady-boy to ***** between a naked women's breasts while 20 Japanese men ejaculate all over both of them.
  • Weirdcore, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Oh! So my dream job does exist?
  • Bennessy, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Wow, and conspiracy nuts complain the U.S. is becoming fascist.
    • KegBol, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Just a second - these guys are needed because there are all sorts of sick ***** out there who are willing to make god-only-knows what and we have to know when they cross the line. This isn't mainstream porn they're censoring - we even had a movie (Baise Moi) passed uncut in the UK that was banned in France for being too graphic!
      And, for the record, the US is becoming fascistic.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.