That's right folks. You too can own a DVD of The Price of Pleasure for just 29.95, complete with all its stolen, non-2257-compliant sexually explicit footage. No proof of age required. You don't even need a credit card. They'll happily take your money with all the convenience of Paypal.
Don't let this stirring example of bullshit agitprop ... er ... courageous documentary film making get away. All you have to do is mouse-click on over to The Price of Pleasure promotional Web site at www.thepriceofpleasure.com and you'll be able to order your DVD, regardless of who you are and what your interests might be, directly from the producers. You don't need to be affiliated with any educational or research institution such as might conceivably qualify for exemption under 2257 record-keeping requirements or even have to state that you are over eighteen to see the hardest XXX images the producers were able to acquire.
All you need is a Paypal account and a strong stomach and this baby's all yours. So hustle on over right now and add this to the collection of stuff you hide under the bed.
The Price of Pleasure - you know you want it and now it can be all yours for not much more than a copy of Grand Theft Auto.
And you'll be supporting a noble cause. An unspecified portion of your payment will be used to defray the expenses of the producers and their associates as they travel the nation decrying the evils of the kind of material they're peddling to the general public. You too can enjoy the satisfaction of feeling morally superior to the creators and consumers of the stolen material contained in this movie while being horrified, titillated and shamed all at the same time.
Don't miss out. Order your copy of The Price of Pleasure Today. Just $29.95 while supplies last, or until the producers get busted by the feds.
A sanctuary for supporters of sexual free expression and the adult sexual media.
Hold the hell up...Paypal???
ReplyDeleteThat wouldn't be the same Paypal that for so long had BIG issues with handling adult content providers....wouldn't it??
I wonder if they will be reconsidering their policy in the wake of accepting this trash, then?? Or, are they only giving antiporn producers the special waiver from their rules???
Oh....and the GTA reference is priceless....we can't allow our kids to see video games filled with faked violence and....badly pixellated nearly nude girls; but full-on hardcore BDSM for the sake of condemning it??? Perfectly OK, I guess.
And all for the cost that is less than the going monthly rate for a porn website membership.
Hey...you can't say that sex doesn't sell, right?? Using sex to sell anti-sex sure does sell...ask any FOX News news actress. Or Bill O'Reilly.
The emails to the DoJ regarding 2257 violations should begin IMMEDIATELY. Freakin' hypocrites.
Anthony
I will be addressing this in MN when I go there to rebut this film, yet again.
ReplyDelete@Anthony: You see, it's different for TPoP because they hold the same views as the Paypal people: anti-adult industry. They're not promoting it, they're trashing it.
ReplyDeleteI think the Paypal thing is particularly heinous, given Paypal's refusal to process charges for anything they consider "pornographic." I doubt anyone affiliated with Paypal has seen this movie, and if its content were brought to their attention, and the possibility that they might be liable for assisting in its distribution under 2257 regulations could very well inspire them to drop the account.
ReplyDeleteIt's certainly worth bringing to their attention.
It can be brought to their attention but believe me, they will make an exception for The Price of Pleasure. It is billed as a documentary "exposing" the pornography industry. Not as something like "Cum Whores 4" or "XYZ- Porno Queen" or an escort's site or whatever. The difference for PayPal will be language and intent.
ReplyDeleteBut explaining the 2257 regs, as Ernest suggested, will be the best bet.
@Anthony: "but full-on hardcore BDSM for the sake of condemning it??? Perfectly OK, I guess."
Yes. I hate to sound like I'm sticking up for them, but that's called presenting the facts for your case. That is something we demand when people make claims in arguments online. Way back we used to abbreviate it PPOR: Post Proof Or Retract.
Whenever controversial content is included in a documentary, it receives a bit of a pass, especially if the documentary is making a case against said content. It is a visual version of citing your source for a claim.
The latest press releases about TPoP:
ReplyDeletelink
link
Inspired by the publicity around screenings Pirates II, the producers want to make free copies available for campus events and get it out to as many campuses as possible, apparently to stimulate discussion. Which I think, on the surface of it, is great. What I think is not so great is their tactic so far of trying to make sure such events are secreted away in places where somebody with a critical perspective might actually show up.
Notably, they couple TPoP with a highly loaded "Study Guide" (link). Interestingly, one of the books "assigned" in the guide is an early-90s book on the porn industry called "Coming Attractions", coauthored by Ernest Greene.
I'll throw together a blog post about this in the next few days if somebody doesn't beat me to it.
One of the many risible claims made by the producers and defenders of TPOP is that it is exempt from 2257 regulations under a special exception made for educational use of sexually explicit materials. The wording of that exception, however, is quite narrow. Let's go back and have another look at the relevant statutory provision, shall we?
ReplyDelete“commercial distribution of a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, but does not refer to noncommercial or educational distribution of such matter, including transfers conducted by bona fide lending libraries, museums, schools, or educational organizations.”
It's just a bit of a stretch to presume this language would apply to mass distribution of sexually explicti materials to college students without regard to whether or not such materials are relevant to their areas of study, or whether or not those distributing said material have scholarly intentions in doing so.
Were such to be the interpretation, would it not cover my handing out my own sexually explicit videos, many of which are, in fact, educational in focus, to college students across the land? More likely, such actions on my part would be regarded as commercial promotion, or at best political advocacy, neither of which would be protected under the exemption. In short, if I did what these people are doing, no one would doubt that I was violating federal law, should the material lack the necessary disclaimers and evidence of proof of age as TPOP lacks, and I'm reasonably sure I'd get busted for it in a heartbeat.
With the passage of time, those responsible for the creation of TPOP grow ever bolder in flouting the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257 - showing it in public venues, selling it on the Internet with none of the required warnings, disclaimers and records-keeping information and now passing it out like popcorn at screenings of sexually explicit videos that do, in fact, comply with federal law.
While they sneeringly insist that they are entitled to do this because it's fair use, it's educational and besides, those evil, murderous, lying, human trafficking, raping, torturing pimps who made the materials stolen for this nauseating exercise in The Big Lie are known to have the necessary records anyway and are completely trustworthy on this score if on no other, the unalterable fact is that every time they show TPOP or distribute a copy by any means, they commit multiple felonies.
Perhaps some space can be found for them in a cell adjacent that of Max Hardcore.
As a footnote, Coming Attractions, which I co-authored under my real name with the late Dr. Robert Stoller of UCLA, is often cited on lists of anti-porn literature because it contains passages critical of some aspects of the adult video industry. Taken as a whole, it makes no case against porn whatsoever. I suspect it's tacked onto these bibliographies on the strength of a few short paragraphs taken out of context by people who couldn't be bothered to read the whole book. My co-author is deceased and I can do nothing to prevent the inadvertant or willful distortion of our work, but I can authoritatively say it is wildly out of place amid the welter of progandistic nonsense that clutters such lists.
Oh yes, something I forgot to mention from the link to the "study guide" for TPOP, this view attributed to me:
ReplyDelete"Pornographer Ernest Greene believes that male domination and power are natural components of sexuality..”
Only one thing wrong with this paraphrasing of what I actually said in my three hour interview with Chyng Sun: It's not what I said. In fact, in the snippet of that interview that made the final cut, there is no reference to "male domination" whatsoever, which is hardly surprising since I made no such claim as is alleged above.
In fact, I did say that I believe power and aggresssion to be natural components of sexuality and part of the energy that fuels reproductive activity in all species. I was quite global and quite clear about that assertion and made no specific linkage of this readily observable natural phenomenon to "male domination," which I regard as no more natural than female domination, which is to be found in many species, includiing our own.
This is just a flat-out lie and if Chyng Sun, who has the unedited video tapes she shot with me can bring forth evidence to the contrary, she can have the pleasure of watching me eat a copy of her dreadful film in front of an audience of her choosing.
Somehow, I feel quite safe making that offer.