Monday, February 27, 2012

Could Scottsdale, Arizona, Become The New "Porn Valley"?

As the day rapidly approaches that the LA condom mandate law takes full effect, the speculation has already began on whether the porn industry either fights the law or takes flight for more secure surroundings.

Some have been talking Las Vegas as a possible target replacement, while others have focused on Florida, where production has already been at full strength for quite a while.

However, the latest speculation is that the metro area of Phoenix, Arizona would be the prime candidate for porn production should there be a mass exodus of the San Fernando Valley.

This has been further strengthened by a story that originally aired on the ABC-TV local Tempe affiliate, then reposted to TheRealPornWikileaks, in which there is a discussion on whether or not the industry moving to the Phoenix area would be a good idea.

The article used two familiar faces for the "debate"; for the pro side, performer Taryn Thomas:

Taryn Thomas tells ABC15 Arizona could see an increase in adult films being made here because of a new regulation in Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles City Council recently passed an ordinance requiring condom use on porn sets.

Filming pornography is actually legal in California but that’s not the case in Arizona, here it’s considered pandering.

But Thomas tells ABC15 pornography is shot in Arizona anyway.

In fact, Thomas says the Valley is a breeding ground for adult film stars like her.

Thomas says with porn being a multi-billion dollar industry, Arizona should be happy to have it.

“Ultimately it’s going to bring revenue if it does come here,” said Thomas.
“Arizona should be thankful and begging us to come here because our state is in such a budget deficit.”

Needless to say, there is a contrarian view....and no surprise who ABC15 tapped to present it.
But Shelley Lubben, President of the Pink Cross Foundation, believes talk of the porn industry moving to Arizona is simply a bluff to get the ordinance changed.

If the industry does move to Arizona, Lubben says Arizona will be worse off for it.

“You don’t want this in Arizona because they’re bringing prostitution,” said Lubben. “They’re bringing illegal drugs. They’re having unprotected sex so those sexually transmitted diseases go into the general public. You don’t want this.”
Right, Ministress....because crystal meth labs don't already exist in Arizona, and people aren't already engaging in "unprotected sex".

Actually, probably fitting that the article pits Shelley against Taryn...a few years ago, Lubben had made an attempt to recruit Thomas into her PCF flock, taking advantage of a couple of low days Taryn had. When Thomas politely denied Shelley, the latter went apepoop, threatening to out Taryn for allegedly engaging in "dangerous sex" and using drugs, among other sins. Taryn simply flipped Shelley off and moved on. (A abridged synopsis of the matter can be found here.)

Interestingly enough, there may already be some "casing" going on, since Taryn Thomas hosted one of the first ever porn conventions in Arizona, the Pornstar Ball.  I'm sure that a good time was had by all...just check Taryn's Twitter page for updates.

Update:   WOW...Taryn Thomas just tweeted that apparently ABC15 is tiring of the clown act of Shelley Lubben, because in this morning's coverage of their "porn coming to Arizona" story, they purged all of her "testimony" from their segment. Ouch...even I felt that one.

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Why Kayden Kross Kicks More Ass Before 6 AM Than Most Regular Folk Do All Day: The FOXBiz "Condom Mandate" Debate

 [Updated...scroll to bottom.]

A very illuminating debate on the LA condom mandate law took place last week.

Representing the pro-mandate side was Wendy Murphy, crusading prosecuting attorney and long-time TV trial analyst, well known for high-profile prosecutions...and apparently, waist-deep in Gail Dines' antiporn ideology. (Yeah, like Gloria Allred and Marcia Clark and Nancy Grace and other high-profile female prosecutors aren't???)

Repping the anti-side?? Porn performer and Digital Playground contract starlet Kayden Kross, who also knows how to spin a phrase or a thousand, having wrote plenty of pieces for Mike South's blog, and whom was a major contributor to Michael Whiteacre's still-in-the-works expose/documentary on Shelley Lubben.

The venue?? The FOX Business Channel's "The John Stossel Show".

Now, if you weren't aware of Kayden's gift of the tongue, you'd think that she would be mincemeat for the much more seasoned Murphy. Heck, Murphy basically looks like she could be Kayden's mother...and as we shall see, Murphy probably acts like she wants to be Kross' mother, too. After all, the prevailing conventional wisdom is that unless her name happens to be Nina Hartley, porn girls are so obsessed with their boob implants and what/how many dicks they can jam into their vaginas and mouths and buttholes that they aren't really that bright enough to defend their profession.

That day, though, Kayden busted that stereotype and crashed it into a million pieces. To put it simply, she kicked ass.

This was an especially gratifying boat race because apparently Wendy Murphy had gotten the memo from her antiporn colleagues that it was perfectly OK to slut-bait and personally embarrass Kayden for being such an advocate for intelligent porn women...up to and including bringing Kross' parents into the debate and dissing K2's arguments as "the dumbest thing I've ever heard". That K2 handled such an ambush with her usual public grace and class is not too surprising..though, I'm sure that her inner voice had some much...ummmm....earthier phrasing.

But aside from the personalities involved, the most important discussion point of the debate was the conflict between using the law for the purpose of "public safety and protection" -- the main justification used by proponents of the condom mandate law -- and the protection of individual liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention...which happens to be Stossel's main theme as a right-wing libertarian.

I should preface this with my own disclaimer: I am not a fan of John Stossel or of any network associated with Roger Ailes's "Political Crackhouse"....errrrrrrrrr, FOX political propaganda outlet, and I fundamentally reject his base view of libertarian capitalism totally freed of useful regulation and affirmative government as a referee insuring a level playing field.  I may be pro-porn and sex positive, but I'm still also very much a Lefty. Refer all objections to my new Twitter page, @AJK_DontGiveAFuck.  (Please don' doesn't exist..but you get my drift.)

However, there are times when I do think that libertarians do have a point or two...and this is one of them.

Allow me to quote from Marv Montag, an adult reviewer who posted at his blog his own review of the FBC's debate.

To start, it should be noted that I have no problem with condoms in my adult films, and I fairly regularly review the one (?) company that I know of that consistently uses them--Wicked Pictures.  I also review the releases of a number of companies that don't.  I'm neutral on the whole issue from the "aesthetics" perspective.

That said, I do have a problem with the unnecessary intrusion of laws on personal freedoms--particularly those dealing with freedom of expression.  In her rebuttals, Ms. Murphy noted that it was the job of the government to protect people.  On the surface, this is a laudable goal and has a good deal of truth to it.  What is lost in her espoused application of this idea, however, is the fact--and it's one fundamental to our nation's very core--that it's as much, or more so, the government's job to protect our liberties.  In watching various shows on television and reading various news articles, I have found that certain prosecutors seem to have a tendency to forget this fact...or at least put it aside when they so choose or when it's most convenient.  Indeed, sometimes the best way for a government to do its job--and to protect its peoples' liberties--is to do nothing at all.  (Thoreau, anyone?)

Now, one argument that invariably arises in this debate is the notion that workplace safety is regularly regulated by law and governmental agencies, etc. and that this should be no different.  It is certainly true that workplace safety is regulated.  As someone who deals with this firsthand in "real life", one might even say that it's regulated too much.  That said, the overall effect--in general--is a positive one.  But, what this argument fails to account for is that those instances most thought of in terms of workplace safety regulation do not deal heavily with inherently-speech-related items.  In the state of California--where this is all going down--the production of adult films falls fully under constitutionally-protected freedom of expression  (ref.:  the Freeman decision).  By forcing adult performers to wear condoms in their scenes--because the government presumes to know "what's best for them"--the art itself is being changed...the expression itself is being substantively and meaningfully altered.  This--to me and as one who holds dear all of our personal liberties--is enough to call this new law a "bad" one. 

Further, it does--as Kayden noted--have serious ramifications in the area of personal choice...sexual choice, which is also a form of personal liberty.  One could envision any myriad of things that could be "regulated" out of existence in the interest of "protecting people against themselves".  Indeed, if given enough leeway, a good many of our rights could be squelched by these same types of arguments.
Mr. Montag's point about prosecutors taking liberties with their power to convict people by appealing to the meme of "Those criminals are really guilty, they're just using their 'Constitutional rights' to trial by jury to game the system and get over from justice!!" is very much a germane and excellent point...especially given my point that most female high-profile prosecutors tend also to be more than a bit biased towards the antiporn crusader position of "rescuing girls from their abusers". That mentality does tend to support more coercive and blunderbuss regulation of public behavior, under the notion that going after the "source" and the "roots" of violent and dangerous behavior will curb the negative impacts of such behavior.  That describes the condom mandate proponents down to the crossed T and dotted I.

My main focus, though, is on the notion that because the government has a role in workplace safety because private business simply can't be trusted to self-regulate themselves, that automatically justifies laws like the condom mandate. Even though I support the use of government in ensuring government safety, I always have qualified that support with the condition that such regulation be limited to the harm that is being mitigated, that such regulation not be excessive as to harm those who are not directly responsible for that harm, and that those who will suffer the full weight of that regulation have some flexibility and some input into how such a regulation should be enforced. In other words, an effective regulation should be focused on the immediate harm, not be used as a wedge to impose even more restrictions on those not directly affected.

I also agree with Marv's position on how the condom mandate would essentially destroy free sexual expression in porn by reducing such expression to a narrow political/"health protection" spectrum. It's one thing for government officials to give rewards to groups who do endorse proper health care goals such as reducing STI's or promoting condom usage broadly as one of many means of prevention. It's quite another to insist that ALL porn performers should be forced to wear condoms and dental dams, and that any portrayal of sexual expression lacking such should be sanctioned, punished, or even censored. The former is proper progressive activism; the latter is what is more common with fascists and Nazis. Art and expression should only be regulated to the point that free and consenting adults are given full rights to engage in such with maximum protection from abuse or coercion. When government or monopolistic business abuses their power to micromanage adult people's sex lives or viewing habits, then we have lost any legitimacy as a representative democracy or a humanist state. main objections to the condom mandate remain the same as they always were: the law simply addresses a phantom pandemic that simply doesn't exist and never existed; it destroys and scapegoats a community (porn performers) who actually had a system of prescreening and testing that actually DID work well in containing STD's; and it is essentially a Ponzi scheme for the gross profits of shakedown artists like AHF's Michael Weinstein, BS propagandists like "Christian" activists Shelley Lubben and Monica Foster, and ultimately, a drive to regulate porn out of existence in California, and do an end-around over the Freeman decision that legalized porn production.

That "liberals" like Wendy Murphy and Gail Dines and Mike Weinstein can ally with "conservatives" like Pat Trueman and Shelley Lubben in boosting this law says a lot.

A few more eloquent voices like Kayden Kross would do a lot of good. And, I don't even mind the red hair. In kinda rocks.

Keep kicking 'em, K2.

Update:  Sean over at has just posted a followup interview with Kayden Kross, where she elaborates on her adventure with Stossel and Murphy and restates her views on the condom mandate's impact. Just go there and read up on it...Kayden's looking better by the second. As if she didn't look damn HOT already.

Monday, February 6, 2012

How Defective Condoms In South Africa Directly Affect The LA Condom Mandate (Or...Class, Capitalism, and Sloppy Seconds??)

[Also reposted over at my Red Garter Club blog]

This will take a bit of background to build to the main point..but it’s worth it, I promise. Just stick with me on this, Clones.

One of the many, many talking points put out by those who defend the LA condom mandate law is that since people — especially young people — look to porn as their only means of “sex education, and copy what they see in these videos, only showing condomized sex on screen or online will motivate them to use condoms in real life…and thusly, sexually transmitted diseases and infections will disappear, and global peace will reign supreme.

All that is fine and good….and promoting condom usage amongst the general public as a means of protection against both unwanted pregnancy AND STI’s is NOT a bad thing at all.

However..since condoms aren’t produced out of thin air, but made by corporations who exist first and foremost to make a profit, the inevitable question arises of: “What about the QUALITY of the condoms being issued to the general public? Are they of the top of the line, or are they merely the rejects and scrubs of the condom companies while the good, high-quality stuff remains on a store counter to be sold for an arm and a leg?”

That is not a unimportant question, because it’s the general public, and especially the poor and working class folk, who bear the worst burden of HIV and other STI infections, as well as the greatest risks…and if you are going to tell everyone that condoms are the best defense, you damn well had better insure that that defense isn’t corrupted or compromised.

Because if you slip that shit up, stuff like what happened in South Africa last week is bound to result.

This is what happens when quality control is pushed under the bus and dragged behind at expressway speed:

Some condoms burst. Others leaked like sieves. 

South Africa’s leading anti-AIDS group said Tuesday that allegedly faulty condoms are among more than 1.35 million handed out at the African National Congress’ 100th birthday party.

Health officials confirmed that all of those condoms have been ordered to be recalled. But the Treatment Action Campaign said no warning has been issued to people that they may have carried away defective condoms that could now cause them to unsuspectingly spread or contract HIV. South Africa has the world’s highest number of AIDS patients, some 5.6 million.

The third recall in less than five years raises questions about the quality of some of the 425 million-plus condoms that the government gives away each year, and the competence of the South African Bureau of Standards that is supposed to ensure their quality is up to international standards.

AIDS activist Sello Mokhalipi of the Treatment Action Campaign said he complained to the health department after “we had people flocking in, coming to report that the condoms had burst while they were having sex.”

Some were panicking because they were infected with AIDS and were concerned for their partners, he said.

Spokesman Jabu Mbalula of the Free State provincial health department, which distributed the condoms before the Jan. 6-8 celebrations, said they had recalled the entire batch of 1.35 million condoms around Jan. 18. He said there was no need for a panic.

But he was unable to say how many of the condoms were used or have been recovered.

In 2007, the government recalled more than 20 million defective condoms manufactured locally but recovered only 12 million. The Health Ministry said many of the condoms failed the air burst test.

That came after a recall the same year of 5 million defective and locally produced condoms. In that case, the Ministry of Health said a testing manager at the South African Bureau of Standards had taken a bribe to certify the faulty contraceptives.


South Africa recalls defective condoms (via

Now, the article does not state whether the Republic of South Africa manufactures their own condoms, or whether they outsource them from a private manufacturer, but they do state that their Bureau of Standards is supposed to insure that whatever is distributed to the public meets their quality standards.

Apparently, they either looked the other way because they were willing to prove their main point, or they just slipped up on the job.

What does that have to do with the condom mandate law in LA, you ask??

Well…it’s an open secret that the major condom companies here in the US (Lifestyles, Durex, Trojan, et. al.) would just love to tap into the “pro condom”/”safer sex” mood for their own financial advantages. Remember that it was Lifestyles employees who were recruited as “protestors” to follow AIDS Healthcare Foundation president Michael Weinstein’s “protests” against HUSTLER and other companies for not banishing bareback sex vids and wrapping their dicks. I would think that such companies would make a nice killing (no pun intended) from scoring exclusive sponsorships or deals with porn companies forced into condom-only vids in order to promote the “safer sex” memes in the larger public. Imagine “Announcing, the 2014 AVN Awards….Brought To You Byyyyyyyy…..DUREX CONDOMS!!!!!!” Or, better yet, imagine you favorite porn starlet sprouting a Trojan necklace and getting paid an endorsement fee for insisting on wrapping up her male partners. Kinda like the decals on the NASCAR racing cars, or the walking ads on World Cup soccer players, except sexier.

The problem with all that, though, is that most poor folk simply can’t afford to buy condoms off the shelf…especially not the top-of-the-line, quality stuff. So, they must go to the local clinic to get their protection…and while condoms there are indeed free, something tells me that they are also not quite so high on the quality factor. I mean, what’s to say that the condom companies don’t just dump their second- or even third-hand product on medical clinics to give to “the poor” while hoarding their quality stuff to sell for maximum profit?? It’s not as if food stores and major retailer chains don’t set the precedent of dumping their excess, close to shelf date product onto food shelters, right??

Do you now see the recipe for disaster here, gangstas and gangstrices??

Imagine if the condom law goes nationwide, thanks to the efforts of AHF and OSHA. Now, imagine AHF and Lifestyles getting a sweetheart deal with the city of LA and a major porn producing company (let’s use VIVID for an example) to put out “FREE CONDOMS!!!!!” to all citizens of that metropolis as a means of promoting “safer sex”. Now, imagine Lifestyles simply dumping its lower quality, excess product onto the streets of LA, using AHF perps to pass out the rubbers to the public.

And now, imagine one or two or five or fifty cases of condoms breaking during use, and as a result, someone gets infected with HIV. Or worse, a performer gets infected during a shoot because he/she didn’t know that the partner was infected but had to do the scene anyway…and the condom accidentally shatters during the main event.

Gee…I wonder how Mike Weinstein will react to THAT.

More importantly, how will this play in the minds of sexual reactionaries who will insist all along that condoms are simply another evil “sex pozzie” attempt to provide false protection for sexual depravity of the privileged wealthy at the expense of the poor, who are merely guniea pigs and cash cows for the “sexual elite”??

The very same arguments, BTW, are being used to slander Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and every other progressive service org delivered to the poor and working class without the approval of the Religious Right.

Be careful of what you ask for…