I never cease to be amazed at the amount of porn and pornospeak on anti porn blogs/sites. I swear it just floors me. Aside from my whole "you have no idea what those performers think about you using their images" thing, I still just don't get it.
Yes, fine, it's been stated that it is done to show everyone the vile degrading nature of porn. But a lot of these blogs are simply plastered with the stuff. Hardcore images. Images of nude women with those oh so unrealistic unnatual airbrushed bodies. Bondage images. The language is often straight out of a Max Hardcore film. And two things roll through my head every time I see it: One- there is more free jerk off material on a lot of anti-porn blogs than you can shake a dick at, Two- it's so over the top & overdone that it actually looses the shock and awe factor. These sites become just another porn site, where a ton of people probably just look at the pictures and ignore the articles all together...seriously, I can see folks into really hardcore porn snickering about who reads antiporn sites for the articles!?
It also causes me to question the whole "trigger effect". I mean, if my blog logo(s) are triggering, if some of the photos I have up at my place, which are absolutely those of a consenting female, are triggering, then how in the hell can this not be (nsfw)? On some sites, it's just so over the top. Look, it's a horrible car crash, let's back up and stare some more! Film it, so we can see how horrible it is later, again and again and again....
head-desk.
A sanctuary for supporters of sexual free expression and the adult sexual media.
Showing posts with label tactics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tactics. Show all posts
Friday, July 20, 2007
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Blurring the Lines
When you take a good look at a great many anti-porn arguments, when you read their newsletters and websites, you will often find a disproportionate amount of news, articles, and essays on Child Pornography.
Child Pornography is the rallying battle cry for a great many anti porn advocates, and well it should be. Kiddie porn is not only illegal; it is not what the majority of porn watchers are buying, it is, in fact, repulsive and harshly condemned by a great many porn fans, performers and producers. It is not the product of the legal industry or those whom use porn responsibly.
Yet it is one of the chief factors used in condemning the industry as a whole.
Why is that?
Because it’s a great way to get people to hate the industry as a whole. No one here condones child pornography, nor denies its existence or the vile nature of it, but child porn and adult porn are two entirely different things, and lumping them together serves the anti-porn agenda of battling against all pornography. Kiddie porn packs one hell of a gut shot that consenting adults screwing on film does not…
And that’s why it’s so prevalent in anti-porn arguments. Take a gander at a few anti-porn sites; you will note that a disproportionate number of their stories are on child porn. No one can read those stories without their guts twisting, and for those who do not know better, child porn becomes the default thought associated with the word porn, and anyone who likes porn moves from filthy perv to filthy pedophile. And that drives up anti-porn support.
It also blurs the issue with unfortunate consequences. Focusing attention on child pornography as a problem unto and of its own is a good thing. The less child porn, the better. However, when the anti porn crowd mixes it in with a fight against adult pornography, they are dividing time and resources. They are also fostering inaccurate stereotypes of adult porn producers, performers, and consumers. They are, in essence, using fear and panic to strike out at the industry as whole, rather than at an illegal activity that could use the attention.
And who does this benefit?
No one but the anti-porn movement.
Child Pornography is the rallying battle cry for a great many anti porn advocates, and well it should be. Kiddie porn is not only illegal; it is not what the majority of porn watchers are buying, it is, in fact, repulsive and harshly condemned by a great many porn fans, performers and producers. It is not the product of the legal industry or those whom use porn responsibly.
Yet it is one of the chief factors used in condemning the industry as a whole.
Why is that?
Because it’s a great way to get people to hate the industry as a whole. No one here condones child pornography, nor denies its existence or the vile nature of it, but child porn and adult porn are two entirely different things, and lumping them together serves the anti-porn agenda of battling against all pornography. Kiddie porn packs one hell of a gut shot that consenting adults screwing on film does not…
And that’s why it’s so prevalent in anti-porn arguments. Take a gander at a few anti-porn sites; you will note that a disproportionate number of their stories are on child porn. No one can read those stories without their guts twisting, and for those who do not know better, child porn becomes the default thought associated with the word porn, and anyone who likes porn moves from filthy perv to filthy pedophile. And that drives up anti-porn support.
It also blurs the issue with unfortunate consequences. Focusing attention on child pornography as a problem unto and of its own is a good thing. The less child porn, the better. However, when the anti porn crowd mixes it in with a fight against adult pornography, they are dividing time and resources. They are also fostering inaccurate stereotypes of adult porn producers, performers, and consumers. They are, in essence, using fear and panic to strike out at the industry as whole, rather than at an illegal activity that could use the attention.
And who does this benefit?
No one but the anti-porn movement.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
....And Just In Case You Are Tired Of It, Still MORE From NPNh...
...straight out of Ren's blog, where she lays down the gauntlet at Adam Cohen's nonsense:
Now, this was my reply, which hasn't made it up on his post yet, so I shall share here...
"Adam, I have no problem with people trying to keep "adult businesses" out of their neighborhoods, especially strip clubs and the like, especially in small towns...People have the right to do that, attempt to keep them out. For instance, where I live, all sex oriented businesses are restricted specifically to commerical/industrial zones via the laws, hence, most strip clubs are in club districts, where they are hardly noted amdist the REST of the bars in the area...and most of our sex shops/porn stores are discreet, clean, and and not anywhere near residential neighborhoods....I also note that study is close to 20 years old....when a great many areas in the midwest, especially industry towns, were in the midst of a huge economic slump, crack was a major epidemic, and I wonder just how much that (rather than the wicked, wicked porn stores) had to do with the crime rates...And I live in a damn metro type area...big city to be exact, and I can tell you, people have more to worry about than the little store on the corner that sells smut and vibrators.
You cannot and do not have the right to babysit adults, however, and if they want porn, they right now, in this country, have a right to it."I mean come on...in 1989 we all still called Russia "The Soviet Union"...things have changed since then...
And really, don't get too flattered, NPNH, you aren't the only reason I made the PPA blog, trust me...Charlie was more the inspiration for that originally....
Ren continues on:
I would like to take you up on this thread: If people want to advocate harsher safety measures in the sex industry, better working conditions, for better treatement by law enforcement, making access to net porn harder for kids to get, things of that nature? That shows me they not only care about the people working in the business, but they care for the people who should not be looking at porn and whatnot...those are the folk who I actually think care about peoples "feelings"...
Then Ren responds to some suggestions that Cohen makes that would almost suit his purposes of bare tolerance of porn; Ren's response as posted follows for each one; and I have added some annoted comments of my own.
AG: I have some suggestions for improving the working conditions of porn performers. How do these strike you?
On porn shoots, a public health officer should be required to be present during filming. The pornographers would pay a fee to the city for this.
Ren Ev: Sure, that would be great, but chances are the "fee" would come out of the performers pay...and the health dept would probably have to hire a hell of a lot more employees, which comes outta tax dollars...I mean, are you just talking about for CA porn valley films, or every porn shoot in America? Cause i can tell you, porn is filmed everywhere.
AK: That wouldn't be such a bad idea....except that are you going to charge enough of a fee or offer such an public health officer enough support to actually do such a job?? And..will you be providing full insurance coverage for porn performers to offset the cost of such a bureacracy??
AG: Porn performers should be required to be regularly tested for all STDs they might reasonably be at risk for contracting.
Ren Ev: Nowadays, that is actually pretty common, testing for almost, if not ALL, STD's... from hep to herpes to aids, even if the companies shooting don't require it, a lot of performers see to it on their own.
AK: Ahhh...ever heard of the AIM Health Care Foundation?? They've been at the center of HIV/AIDS testing for adult performers for the past 10 years or so...and their tests are pretty standard and comprehensive.....and mandated by most performers. Other thing: what about those who simply run their sites away from Silicone Valley...how do you regulate them enough to test them??
AC: Condoms and other protective devices should be required when they will reduce the risk of disease.
Ren Ev: I think more prevelant condom use would be wise. I do not think, however, if performers who test clean should be required to use condoms if they do not want to...for instance, many porn stars are married to other porn stars...should Otto Bauer have to wear a condom whenever he does a scene with Audrey Hollander, his wife?
AK: Condom use should be promoted and encouraged?? Yes, indeed...by progressive health professionals and individual porn performers who choose voluntarily to promote safer sex. Condom use mandated by the government merely to serve the prevailing ideology??? I don't think so...especially since most conservatives would oppose such use as promoting "promiscuity" anyway.
AC: Excessively risky practices such as "ass-to-mouth" should be prohibited from commercial productions.
Ren Ev: Nope. AtM is something people do in their own bedrooms, as well as countless other forms of anal play which inovle a tongue or mouth touching or even penetrating an anus. I don't agree with banning certain sex acts if people are willing to perform them, and if, yeah, real people also do them, and all forms of anal play, including AtM, do actually occur in some peoples bedrooms.
AK: I second that with a "Hell no"....acts that people willingly perform in their private lives should be allowed to be seen on screen; just because some might get squeamish at the sight of AtM or double vaginal doesn't mean those who can perform it safely should be banished. What's next, Adam...should romantic scenes involving BDSM also be banned due to promoting "male violence and submission" of women??
AC: Performers should have the right to revoke their consent to the distribution of their image, up to, say, 30 days after filming is complete.
Ren Ev: I'd say two weeks.
AK: Make it one week for me, since most porn shoots only last one or two days, anyway; and most of the details of what will happen should be worked out before the contract is signed, so there should be no surprises for the performers. If they don't want to perform the act, they can just walk away and not get that paycheck.
AC: I welcome any other suggestions you might have.
Ren Ev: Well, if we are, in theory, going to send health officals, independent security people would be good as well, to insure no one is forced into anything. But, like the health official, that's a pipe dream. I, personally, think that the minimum age of consent for participation in hardcore (as in, involves penetration) porn should be raised to 21.
AK: Here's one of the few cases where I respectfully dissent from The Henchwoman. In my view, raising the legal age for performing in hardcore to 21 is a bad, bad idea; because it puts the blame on young adults who are considered old and mature enough to vote, old enough to be drafted to kill and be killed in war, and old enough to face adult penalties if arrested on felony offenses....but not considered mature enough to make informed decisions about their own bodies and about engaging in sex for pay??? Plus, what's to say that if the legal age is raised, then our already anti-sex culture decides that 21 becomes the new 18, and that since 21 year olds are considered not mature enough to handle the stresses (both physical and mental) of being sex actresses and performers, that perhaps we should raise the age even higher??
I respect Ren's concerns that young adults don't always think about the consequences of their actions and that a more mature attitude would be enhanced by waiting a bit later to engage in porn or sex work....but it still reeks of paternalism to say that one particular group of people should be considered not able to handle themselves in some matters but not in others.
But, that's only my opinion, of course.
Anthony
Now, this was my reply, which hasn't made it up on his post yet, so I shall share here...
"Adam, I have no problem with people trying to keep "adult businesses" out of their neighborhoods, especially strip clubs and the like, especially in small towns...People have the right to do that, attempt to keep them out. For instance, where I live, all sex oriented businesses are restricted specifically to commerical/industrial zones via the laws, hence, most strip clubs are in club districts, where they are hardly noted amdist the REST of the bars in the area...and most of our sex shops/porn stores are discreet, clean, and and not anywhere near residential neighborhoods....I also note that study is close to 20 years old....when a great many areas in the midwest, especially industry towns, were in the midst of a huge economic slump, crack was a major epidemic, and I wonder just how much that (rather than the wicked, wicked porn stores) had to do with the crime rates...And I live in a damn metro type area...big city to be exact, and I can tell you, people have more to worry about than the little store on the corner that sells smut and vibrators.
You cannot and do not have the right to babysit adults, however, and if they want porn, they right now, in this country, have a right to it."I mean come on...in 1989 we all still called Russia "The Soviet Union"...things have changed since then...
And really, don't get too flattered, NPNH, you aren't the only reason I made the PPA blog, trust me...Charlie was more the inspiration for that originally....
Ren continues on:
I would like to take you up on this thread: If people want to advocate harsher safety measures in the sex industry, better working conditions, for better treatement by law enforcement, making access to net porn harder for kids to get, things of that nature? That shows me they not only care about the people working in the business, but they care for the people who should not be looking at porn and whatnot...those are the folk who I actually think care about peoples "feelings"...
Then Ren responds to some suggestions that Cohen makes that would almost suit his purposes of bare tolerance of porn; Ren's response as posted follows for each one; and I have added some annoted comments of my own.
AG: I have some suggestions for improving the working conditions of porn performers. How do these strike you?
On porn shoots, a public health officer should be required to be present during filming. The pornographers would pay a fee to the city for this.
Ren Ev: Sure, that would be great, but chances are the "fee" would come out of the performers pay...and the health dept would probably have to hire a hell of a lot more employees, which comes outta tax dollars...I mean, are you just talking about for CA porn valley films, or every porn shoot in America? Cause i can tell you, porn is filmed everywhere.
AK: That wouldn't be such a bad idea....except that are you going to charge enough of a fee or offer such an public health officer enough support to actually do such a job?? And..will you be providing full insurance coverage for porn performers to offset the cost of such a bureacracy??
AG: Porn performers should be required to be regularly tested for all STDs they might reasonably be at risk for contracting.
Ren Ev: Nowadays, that is actually pretty common, testing for almost, if not ALL, STD's... from hep to herpes to aids, even if the companies shooting don't require it, a lot of performers see to it on their own.
AK: Ahhh...ever heard of the AIM Health Care Foundation?? They've been at the center of HIV/AIDS testing for adult performers for the past 10 years or so...and their tests are pretty standard and comprehensive.....and mandated by most performers. Other thing: what about those who simply run their sites away from Silicone Valley...how do you regulate them enough to test them??
AC: Condoms and other protective devices should be required when they will reduce the risk of disease.
Ren Ev: I think more prevelant condom use would be wise. I do not think, however, if performers who test clean should be required to use condoms if they do not want to...for instance, many porn stars are married to other porn stars...should Otto Bauer have to wear a condom whenever he does a scene with Audrey Hollander, his wife?
AK: Condom use should be promoted and encouraged?? Yes, indeed...by progressive health professionals and individual porn performers who choose voluntarily to promote safer sex. Condom use mandated by the government merely to serve the prevailing ideology??? I don't think so...especially since most conservatives would oppose such use as promoting "promiscuity" anyway.
AC: Excessively risky practices such as "ass-to-mouth" should be prohibited from commercial productions.
Ren Ev: Nope. AtM is something people do in their own bedrooms, as well as countless other forms of anal play which inovle a tongue or mouth touching or even penetrating an anus. I don't agree with banning certain sex acts if people are willing to perform them, and if, yeah, real people also do them, and all forms of anal play, including AtM, do actually occur in some peoples bedrooms.
AK: I second that with a "Hell no"....acts that people willingly perform in their private lives should be allowed to be seen on screen; just because some might get squeamish at the sight of AtM or double vaginal doesn't mean those who can perform it safely should be banished. What's next, Adam...should romantic scenes involving BDSM also be banned due to promoting "male violence and submission" of women??
AC: Performers should have the right to revoke their consent to the distribution of their image, up to, say, 30 days after filming is complete.
Ren Ev: I'd say two weeks.
AK: Make it one week for me, since most porn shoots only last one or two days, anyway; and most of the details of what will happen should be worked out before the contract is signed, so there should be no surprises for the performers. If they don't want to perform the act, they can just walk away and not get that paycheck.
AC: I welcome any other suggestions you might have.
Ren Ev: Well, if we are, in theory, going to send health officals, independent security people would be good as well, to insure no one is forced into anything. But, like the health official, that's a pipe dream. I, personally, think that the minimum age of consent for participation in hardcore (as in, involves penetration) porn should be raised to 21.
AK: Here's one of the few cases where I respectfully dissent from The Henchwoman. In my view, raising the legal age for performing in hardcore to 21 is a bad, bad idea; because it puts the blame on young adults who are considered old and mature enough to vote, old enough to be drafted to kill and be killed in war, and old enough to face adult penalties if arrested on felony offenses....but not considered mature enough to make informed decisions about their own bodies and about engaging in sex for pay??? Plus, what's to say that if the legal age is raised, then our already anti-sex culture decides that 21 becomes the new 18, and that since 21 year olds are considered not mature enough to handle the stresses (both physical and mental) of being sex actresses and performers, that perhaps we should raise the age even higher??
I respect Ren's concerns that young adults don't always think about the consequences of their actions and that a more mature attitude would be enhanced by waiting a bit later to engage in porn or sex work....but it still reeks of paternalism to say that one particular group of people should be considered not able to handle themselves in some matters but not in others.
But, that's only my opinion, of course.
Anthony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)