Chemistry 3 (wherein I pretend to be a porn reviewer)

A few weeks ago, Tristan Taormino sent me a copy of Chemistry 3, her latest film. Rusty and I watched it off and on whenever we had a free moment, and finally finished it before we left for vacation last week.

Chemistry 3 won Best Gonzo at the 2007 AVN Awards. I found this interesting because a lot of people equate gonzo with degradation and, basically, all the 'bad' in porn. But Chemistry is closer to the real meaning of gonzo than all that other stuff people equate with the term:

Gonzo pornography is a filming style of adult video. It is characterized by a filming style that attempts to place the viewer directly into the scene. The name is a reference to gonzo journalism, in which the reporter is part of the event taking place. By analogy, gonzo pornography puts the camera right into the action -- often with one or more of the participants both filming and performing sexual acts -- without the usual separation characteristic of conventional porn and cinema.

What I liked about Chemistry 3 was that it included lots of laughter and a generally laid-back, not-forced feel. That's the whole point, of course; the three guys and three girls could fuck whom they wanted, when they wanted, and had cameras on hand to film as much of it themselves as they wanted.

There were also several "confessionals" with the different performers, where they talked about their personal preferences, their experiences in the adult industry, and a variety of other topics. When I saw Ren's comments about porn companies putting "behind the scenes" stuff on DVDs, I immediately thought of Chemistry 3. The entire film has the feel of those behind the scenes extras. And I think that's important - a lot of folks could stand to be reminded that people who work in the adult industry are, well, people. Shocking, I know; but porn performers have likes and dislikes, interests and opinions, and parts of their lives that don't involve fucking - just like the rest of us.

To anyone who goes around spouting off at the mouth about how horrible and exploitative porn is, I'd recommend watching Chemistry 3. The women aren't getting slapped around and referred to as bitches and sluts, and at no point does anyone have a bored, going-through-the-motions look on his or her face. If you watch Chemistry 3 and call it degrading, to me that says that you think sex on the participants' own terms, where everyone is enjoying themselves, is degrading.

Oh, and for that matter - because why end with snark? - I recommend Chemistry 3 to anyone who wants to see some good porn. Always Aroused Girl is even having a contest at her blog where you can win a copy. If I were some kind of pseudo-professional porn reviewer with a rating system based on stars or thumbs, I'd give Chemistry 3 the maximum number of those.

BREAKING NEWS: 2257 Regulations Delared Unconstitutional by Sixth US Appealate Court

The story from XBiz.com, with a special bow down to Violet Blue via Tiny Nibbles and Fleshbot:

http://xbiz.com/news/85586

CINCINATTI — The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled today that the federal record-keeping statute 18 U.S.C. 2257 is unconstitutional, holding that the law is overbroad and facially invalid.

Attorney Lawrence Walters told XBIZ that the court’s opinion, while a very significant victory, is not the final word on the question of 2257’s constitutionality and cautioned that adult webmasters should not view it as the end of their 2257 concerns.

“Generally, you have to be very careful with reacting too rashly to any opinion,” Walters said. “This is a panel ruling, and it is not final. The government could ask for an en banc rehearing by the full circuit, and they can appeal the decision.”

Walters also noted that the decision only applies to the portion of the U.S. that is covered by the 6th Circuit – namely, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

The good news, Walters said, is that the government’s options in getting the opinion overturned are all “long shots,” and he said the court’s reasoning in the opinion was very sound.

“The judges on this panel are renowned for being tremendously bright and it shows through in this ruling,” Walters said. “There’s no doubt that the 1st Amendment arguments here were strong, and the court recognized that the law clearly sweeps in too much protected speech, and there are just too many problems with the law, generally.”

The court’s decision came in the case Connection Distributing vs. Gonzales, a case that reaches all the way back to 1995, when Connection, a publisher of swingers-themed magazines and websites, first challenged the constitutionality of 2257. Following a long history of rejections and appeals, the path eventually led back to the 6th Circuit court of appeals, and today’s ruling.

Writing for the majority, Judge Cornelia G. Kennedy stated in the opinion that the court’s hands were tied in terms of trying to impose any limiting construction on the statute that would comport with the intent of Congress, leaving Congressional amendment of the statute the only option for rendering 2257 constitutional.

“The plain text, the purpose and the legislative history of the statute make clear that Congress was concerned with all child pornography and considered record-keeping important in battling all of it, without respect to the creator’s motivation,” Kennedy wrote in the opinion. “There is, therefore, no narrowing construction.”

The government argued in the case that 2257 was aimed only at conduct and not speech. Had the court accepted this argument a lower standard of review would have been applied, and the court may have ruled that 2257 was a valid regulatory statute. The court rejected the government’s assertion that 2257 merely regulates conduct, however, in very direct fashion.

“This argument is unpersuasive,” Kennedy wrote. “While the government is indeed aiming at conduct, child abuse, it is regulating protected speech, sexually explicit images of adults, to get at that conduct. To the extent the government is claiming that a law is considered a conduct regulation as long as the government claims an interest in conduct and not speech, the Supreme Court has rejected that argument.”

Kennedy also noted that the child abuse, “the actual conduct in which the government is interested, is already illegal.”

“Child pornography, while speech, can be considered more like conduct because the conduct depicted is illegal, and if that illegality did not occur, no images of child pornography would be created,” Kennedy wrote. “Adult sexual conduct is not illegal and it is in fact constitutionally protected … The regulation of visual depictions of adult sexual activity is not based on its intrinsic relation to illegal conduct. It is, therefore, a regulation of speech, because both the photograph and the taking of a photograph ‘bear … [a] necessary relationship to the freedom to speak, write, print or distribute information or opinion.’”

Kennedy said the court was not unaware of the serious scourge of child
pornography — it just believes that there has to be a less burdensome option for
attacking the problem.

“We do not belittle the despicability of child pornography, and we appreciate the difficulties faced by the government,” Kennedy wrote. “There are a myriad of limitations available, however, that would reduce the breadth of the recordkeeping requirements and would more narrowly focus on the government’s interest and therefore remove some of the protected speech from the statute’s coverage. Such limitations have been suggested by witnesses who testified before Congress and by the plaintiffs here.”

Ultimately, Walters said adult webmasters and business owners should take a “wait and see” approach to the ruling, but there’s no question that the ruling should be counted as a victory in one 2257-related battle, even if it is not the decisive shot of the overall war.

“People should treat this as a step in the ladder towards total invalidation of 2257,” Walters said. “It certainly provides a roadmap for future arguments, as well.”

J. Michael Murray, the attorney for Connections Distributing, was not available for comment at press time.

Considering that the ruling applies only to the Sixth District's immediate jurisdiction and that it has no bearing on another suit currently ongoing involving The Free Speech Coalition's efforts to neuter 2257 nationwide, it nevertheless is a huge victory...and probably the beginning of the end for these regs.

Maybe we can finally have some sanity in this country concerning sexual expression after all??

Government report on 'extreme' porn

So I've ranted briefly about the Criminal Justice Bill in the UK, and the legislation contained therein to make it illegal to possess certain images the government deems 'extreme', which reads like this.

To 'back up' these proposals, the Home Office set up a Ministry of Justice report on 'the evidence of harm to adults relating to extreme pornography'.

Not the most thrilling of documents...

Authors: Catherine Itzin, Ann Taken, Ruth Kelly (all anti-porn feminists)

My problems with this, and why it says nothing more about why this legislation is necessary or justified:

1. They're using old research, most of it not relating directly to the 'extreme' images that are soon to be banned.

2. Their reading of Donnerstein (the only research I've read directly myself) is based upon non-extreme pornography. Donnerstein found that a far greater number of men watching 'violent' pornography were likely to identify themselves with the victim than the aggressor.

3. This paragraph:

"Contrary to expectations, it was found that in 30 of the 48 primary studies included, the content of the extreme pornographic material used was described in graphic detail. Direct quotes of these explicit descriptions have not been repeated in this report because the nature of the material was 'too extreme'. Instead it has been described in more neutral terms. This has been done to avoid the risk that these descriptions would function as extreme pornographic material for the reader, producing sexual arousal and orgasm to material that depicts or enacts serious sexual violence, explicit serious violence in a sexual context or explicit intercourse or oral sex with an animal (bestiality)."

So now it's apparently dangerous to read this potentially lurid report in case we find it so erotic we have to have a wank???

WTF, Brit government?

I guess porn really does lead to violence....

Bond set for woman accused of killing boyfriend

[...]

On Sunday morning, Strowder allegedly found at least one CD with nude photos of women and confronted Martin in their home about 10 a.m. She then allegedly got a gun and shot him multiple times, including twice in the head, according to prosecutors. The 54-year-old man was later pronounced dead on the scene, the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office said.

[more]