Those lovely folks at Stop Porn Culture!, after a brief retreat no doubt occasioned by all the attention called to the blatant violations of 18 U.S.C 2257 contained in their porn-bashing slide show, are once again making this odious pack of lies, complete with all 88 non-compliant images, available to anyone who visits their site with just the click of a mouse to indicate that the user is over 18.
Still no compliance statement. Still no legal language on the front conforming to 2257 regulations. Still no keeper of records information. Still no disclaimer asserting that all the performers whose stolen likenesses appear in the presentation are over 18 (which the producers couldn't prove if they had to since they pirated the content and have no records to substantiate such a claim).
In other words, they've gone back to flagrantly flouting federal laws that the rest of us obey on pain of fine and imprisonment.
There is a comment section on their Web site. Perhaps someone should bring it to the producers' attention that they are committing numerous felonies for which they may later face charges, and that they rightly should because they still have no evidence that minors do not appear in any of the images used in the finished product.
Let's make them aware that we're still watching them and that the heat is still on. If they don't take those non-compliant images out of their line-up, sooner or later, they'll get to find out what lawful pornographers already know, which is that throwing your defiance of federal statutes in the face of law enforcement is a very good way to end up a criminal defendant.
A sanctuary for supporters of sexual free expression and the adult sexual media.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Nina Rides A Vette Now (With Update)
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Just one question...
This isn't going to be a long and intellectual post, as I'm rather tired from working hard this week and playing hard this weekend. But, since I know from recent posts that some people from the anti-pornography crowd are watching this blog at the moment, I've got a question for them.
I understand that you feel that some sexual acts and interests involve degrading people, usually women. But what do you think is happening when someone who likes rough sex is begging for more -- or even getting irritated with his or her partner because it's not rough enough? Because last night I heard a whole lot of "More!" and even "That's not enough."
Is this only a problem if it's a depiction in pornography? Is this only a problem if the person who wants to be treated more roughly is female? A woman? Transfeminine?
It really puzzles me. I don't understand what the word "degradation" means when it's connected to acts or to kinds of sex or fetishes. To me, one person degrades another if he regards that person as lesser and intends to treat her in a degrading way.
Can that happen on a porn set? Sure. Do some people have fantasies about very harsh treatment? Sure, and yeah, there are genres of porn centered around it. (Though I do have to say I've used porn for a fairly long time and I didn't know about the very rough stuff the anti-porners always mention until I met Ren. Was I aware it existed? Yeah, but only vaguely. While it's true that the plural of anecdote is not data, but I do find myself wondering just what percentage of consumers are big fans of that subgenre, what percentage occasionally use it, and what percentage don't.)
But, well, Ernest mentions in his response to the Price of Pleasure trailer that the scene on which he puts a collar on a woman is affectionate because that's where they were in their relationship at the time. Porn revealing something about an actual relationship? Smiley affectionate tenderness and D/s? Say it ain't so!
Anyway... is that "degradation?" If we take what Ernest is saying at face value -- that they were in a relationship, that this was intimate nice stuff for them -- where's the "degradation?"
I can't engage with the worry that pornography is degrading -- or the definition of pornography as depictions of degradation -- until I know what we mean by degradation in the first place, and why degradation doesn't depend on context.
I understand that you feel that some sexual acts and interests involve degrading people, usually women. But what do you think is happening when someone who likes rough sex is begging for more -- or even getting irritated with his or her partner because it's not rough enough? Because last night I heard a whole lot of "More!" and even "That's not enough."
Is this only a problem if it's a depiction in pornography? Is this only a problem if the person who wants to be treated more roughly is female? A woman? Transfeminine?
It really puzzles me. I don't understand what the word "degradation" means when it's connected to acts or to kinds of sex or fetishes. To me, one person degrades another if he regards that person as lesser and intends to treat her in a degrading way.
Can that happen on a porn set? Sure. Do some people have fantasies about very harsh treatment? Sure, and yeah, there are genres of porn centered around it. (Though I do have to say I've used porn for a fairly long time and I didn't know about the very rough stuff the anti-porners always mention until I met Ren. Was I aware it existed? Yeah, but only vaguely. While it's true that the plural of anecdote is not data, but I do find myself wondering just what percentage of consumers are big fans of that subgenre, what percentage occasionally use it, and what percentage don't.)
But, well, Ernest mentions in his response to the Price of Pleasure trailer that the scene on which he puts a collar on a woman is affectionate because that's where they were in their relationship at the time. Porn revealing something about an actual relationship? Smiley affectionate tenderness and D/s? Say it ain't so!
Anyway... is that "degradation?" If we take what Ernest is saying at face value -- that they were in a relationship, that this was intimate nice stuff for them -- where's the "degradation?"
I can't engage with the worry that pornography is degrading -- or the definition of pornography as depictions of degradation -- until I know what we mean by degradation in the first place, and why degradation doesn't depend on context.
Friday, September 5, 2008
People get testy when things don't go their way...
As in, here.
It seems the author has a problem wiht critique of the "fair and unbiased" anti-porn film "The Price of Pleasure", and of course, assumes we just attack the hell out of everyone involved with it, including SKL, who is/was a sex worker.
Ahem. Actually, I believe SKL's representation as a star of mainstream porn was what was in question, not her sex worker status? There is no question that SKL was involved with sex work, yet never pornography as her primary field, and never in "Mainstream" porn which is what the film is supposedly discussing? Thus, it is not unfair or wooo, horrible mean to assume that SKL is no expert on mainstream pornography. Her status as a sex worker is not in question. Her status as a veteran of porn valley is...and SKL is no such thing, thus, her being included in this "fair and unbiased" film about the mainstream porn is...well, biased.
Now, since I've already been accused by half the free world of being a horrible, sadistic rapist or whatever, I will go ahead and say this now: Gee, we get to be critical of anti porn films that pass themselves off as unbiased, and be just as critical of them as other folk get to be of porn. We get to question the creds and motivations of the people making and in these films, just like you get to question the creds and motivations of people making porn. SKL put herself out there as an authority on a subject, and thus, she is subject to questions and critiques...just as any other person who puts themselves into such a role is.
No one here doubts her feelings on sex work, or her expierences, or her views on her job or other such things. What we question is her status as an authority on pornography, especially mainstream pornography, which is what this film is supposedly dealing with.
Get it now? I certainly hope so.
It seems the author has a problem wiht critique of the "fair and unbiased" anti-porn film "The Price of Pleasure", and of course, assumes we just attack the hell out of everyone involved with it, including SKL, who is/was a sex worker.
Ahem. Actually, I believe SKL's representation as a star of mainstream porn was what was in question, not her sex worker status? There is no question that SKL was involved with sex work, yet never pornography as her primary field, and never in "Mainstream" porn which is what the film is supposedly discussing? Thus, it is not unfair or wooo, horrible mean to assume that SKL is no expert on mainstream pornography. Her status as a sex worker is not in question. Her status as a veteran of porn valley is...and SKL is no such thing, thus, her being included in this "fair and unbiased" film about the mainstream porn is...well, biased.
Now, since I've already been accused by half the free world of being a horrible, sadistic rapist or whatever, I will go ahead and say this now: Gee, we get to be critical of anti porn films that pass themselves off as unbiased, and be just as critical of them as other folk get to be of porn. We get to question the creds and motivations of the people making and in these films, just like you get to question the creds and motivations of people making porn. SKL put herself out there as an authority on a subject, and thus, she is subject to questions and critiques...just as any other person who puts themselves into such a role is.
No one here doubts her feelings on sex work, or her expierences, or her views on her job or other such things. What we question is her status as an authority on pornography, especially mainstream pornography, which is what this film is supposedly dealing with.
Get it now? I certainly hope so.