In the latest development in the Max Hardcore obscenity trial, Paul F. Little (aka "Max Hardcore") has just been sentenced to 46 months in prison. Not to mention, asset forfiture – MaxHardcore.com is now reduced to a single page with a big "Forfeited" stamp placed there by the Department of Justice and the Postal Inspector. Censorship doesn't get any more blatant than this.
Salon has a good article here on the hypocrisy and skewed priorities of an administration that has advocated for actual torture, but prosecutes someone for making images that are too sadistic. (H/T to Trinity for the news about Max Hardcore and the Salon article.)
No doubt many on the anti-porn side will hail this as a step in the right direction. The conservative anti-porn side, clearly, but there have been some on the feminist anti-porn side (notably Heart) who have also gotten behind the prosecution of Max Hardcore. I will point out that there's nothing in the prosecution that has anything to do with treatment of the actresses involved, since, so far, there are no allegations that there anything non-consensual has taken place in the production of Max Hardcore's videos. This is a case of censorship, plain and simple, and if one supports this prosecution, that is exactly what one is advocating.
I will also note, however, that many in the porn community consider Max Hardcore basically an embarrassment, and as this discussion on Fleshbot represents, and this one on AdultDVDTalk, there are plenty of people there who would be happy to simply throw MH to the wolves.
On a related topic, Sex in the Public Square has had some really good coverage recently of the recent wave of obscenity prosecutions. Elizabeth discusses a successful local obscenity prosecution in Staunton, Virginia, here and here, while Lou FCD has a post about obscenity law in general here.
A sanctuary for supporters of sexual free expression and the adult sexual media.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Saturday, October 4, 2008
So Now That I've Seen It ...
Nina and I watched The Price of Pleasure in its uncensored entirety last night.
I'm sure you won't be surprised to know I've got lots to say about it, but I'll save the details until tomorrow when I have time.
One thing I can say thus far is that at least twenty percent of its running time includes stolen, undocumented material that is 100% non-2257-compliant. And they are giving public screenings of it around the country, which blows away the fig-leaf of the "noncommercial or educational distribution of such matter, including transfers conducted by bona fide lending libraries, museums, schools, or educational organizations" exemption. It may be a lot of things, but lawful isn't one of them.
I'm sure you won't be surprised to know I've got lots to say about it, but I'll save the details until tomorrow when I have time.
One thing I can say thus far is that at least twenty percent of its running time includes stolen, undocumented material that is 100% non-2257-compliant. And they are giving public screenings of it around the country, which blows away the fig-leaf of the "noncommercial or educational distribution of such matter, including transfers conducted by bona fide lending libraries, museums, schools, or educational organizations" exemption. It may be a lot of things, but lawful isn't one of them.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Coming Soon: The Spoofing of Sarah Palin
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
SPC Slide Show Back up
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
The Price of Pleasure reviewed, plus, an actual "honest and nonjudgmental" documentary on porn
First reviews of The Price of Pleasure
Several reviews have come out from people who have seen The Price of Pleasure at the few engagements its actually played so far. A review here by Go-To-Girl (aka Guli Fager), a sex-poz blogger and freelance writer who is new to me, but I will definitely read more of in the future. She somehow managed to score an invite to the Austin premier of The Price of Pleasure from Robert Jensen himself, interestingly, though she doesn't sound at all sympathetic to his overall view of sexuality or porn. Another review here from the Montreal Gazette, and here, from the blog Culture @ Montréal. The consensus seems to be that the documentary is anything but "honest and nonjudgmental". And lest you think I'm cherry-picking, Google it yourself – I have yet to see a review that has much good to say about the spin this documentary puts on the issue.
(Chris from Sex in the Public Square also posts his impressions here, though like me, he's only seen the trailer and website and is quite familiar with the figures behind it.)
One interjection here, to head off a possible canard by the anti-porn folks – I'm not actually trying to discourage anybody from going and seeing The Price of Pleasure. In fact, I'm definitely going to make a point of seeing it, if it comes to my area, or if it gets a proper DVD release or is made available on the web, and I encourage others to do likewise. The film is supposed to get a proper release after circulating through the film festival circuit, at lease according to a post by Robert Wosnitzer on the TPoP forum. (And, yes, they do have a forum which they claim is open to "conversations and debates" concerning the film. If anybody wants to take advantage of this rare exception to the usual closed moderation policy of radical feminist blogs, the forum can be found here.)
9 to 5: Days in Porn
I also see from the reviews from the Montreal Film Festival that there is in fact another documentary on the industry nearing release, 9 to 5: Days in Porn. Unlike The Price of Pleasure, which seems to disproportionately focus on the opinions of the "chattering class", this doc really does focus on people working in the porn industry, both on the performing and production end. The focus is on the mainstream LA industry, though it also includes some coverage of the burgeoning Czech porn industry.
This doc also claims "not to judge, but to observe" and seems to succeed in this regard much more so than The Price of Pleasure. Nonetheless, its take on performers and other people in the porn industry seems to be pretty positive, something I have little doubt the antis will find fault with. (I suppose they might also find fault with the fact that neither Shelly Lubin nor her cohorts were included, though interestingly, The Price of Pleasure doesn't include any of those people, either.)
And while this definitely can be seen as a pro-porn documentary, I think its pro-porn in the best sense – it doesn't look like a fluff piece along the lines of HBO's Cathouse, but rather a realistic, unflinching look at the porn industry as work and the performers as workers with a variety of motivations for being in the porn industry. Nor does the documentary shy away from the nature of some of the product, for example, showing Jim Powers at work on an installment of the White Trash Whore series.
9 to 5 includes interviews with some of the more articulate and self-aware voices in the porn world, such as John Stagliano, Sharon Mitchell, Belladonna, and Sasha Grey. The latter two I think are particularly important, because these are two very self-aware, interesting women who have been the target of some very distorted coverage by the mainstream media, which is often used as political hay by the antis as a result.
According to some of the reviews, 9 to 5 is still in the editing process and the version shown at the Montreal Festival is a somewhat longish cut, so it maybe a few months at least before this goes into regular release. Though, personally, considering who's interviewed here, I like the fact that they shot a whole bunch of interview footage and I hope a lot of it ends up being included as DVD extras when that's finally released.
Even more films
Yet another documentary on the porn industry, this time a short one, has recently been made in the Czech Republic, Who is afraid of Ashley Lightspeed?, which describes itself as "A little superficial reportage from the big superficial world of Czech porn business." This doc covers several figures in the Czech porn industry, but focuses on Katerina Strougalova, aka Ashley Lightspeed, a social work student who was quite active in web porn a couple of years ago, and who's still one of the more popular models in the Central European glamor porn genre. She had some publicity in the Czech Republic about a year and a half ago when some of the local tabloids decided to out her as a porn star, using her real name. This actually led to her university threatening to expel her on "morals" grounds, and I'm not entirely sure what the outcome of that was.
This film is actually viewable or downloadable in its entirety from the above-mentioned website, however, its entirely in Czech with no subtitles. If you're part of the 99.8% of the world's population that's non-Czech-speaking, you're kind of out of luck in terms of understanding what anybody is saying. Still, you can glean a lot just from viewing it, and I'm struck by how much the Czech porn industry looks pretty much like the American one.
And getting away from documentaries, there's a comedy/indie flick about feminist porn called Slippery Slope that's just made it onto DVD. An interview with the filmmaker, Sarah Schenck, went up a few days ago on the Hip Slope Mama blog and is worth a look.
Several reviews have come out from people who have seen The Price of Pleasure at the few engagements its actually played so far. A review here by Go-To-Girl (aka Guli Fager), a sex-poz blogger and freelance writer who is new to me, but I will definitely read more of in the future. She somehow managed to score an invite to the Austin premier of The Price of Pleasure from Robert Jensen himself, interestingly, though she doesn't sound at all sympathetic to his overall view of sexuality or porn. Another review here from the Montreal Gazette, and here, from the blog Culture @ Montréal. The consensus seems to be that the documentary is anything but "honest and nonjudgmental". And lest you think I'm cherry-picking, Google it yourself – I have yet to see a review that has much good to say about the spin this documentary puts on the issue.
(Chris from Sex in the Public Square also posts his impressions here, though like me, he's only seen the trailer and website and is quite familiar with the figures behind it.)
One interjection here, to head off a possible canard by the anti-porn folks – I'm not actually trying to discourage anybody from going and seeing The Price of Pleasure. In fact, I'm definitely going to make a point of seeing it, if it comes to my area, or if it gets a proper DVD release or is made available on the web, and I encourage others to do likewise. The film is supposed to get a proper release after circulating through the film festival circuit, at lease according to a post by Robert Wosnitzer on the TPoP forum. (And, yes, they do have a forum which they claim is open to "conversations and debates" concerning the film. If anybody wants to take advantage of this rare exception to the usual closed moderation policy of radical feminist blogs, the forum can be found here.)
9 to 5: Days in Porn
I also see from the reviews from the Montreal Film Festival that there is in fact another documentary on the industry nearing release, 9 to 5: Days in Porn. Unlike The Price of Pleasure, which seems to disproportionately focus on the opinions of the "chattering class", this doc really does focus on people working in the porn industry, both on the performing and production end. The focus is on the mainstream LA industry, though it also includes some coverage of the burgeoning Czech porn industry.
This doc also claims "not to judge, but to observe" and seems to succeed in this regard much more so than The Price of Pleasure. Nonetheless, its take on performers and other people in the porn industry seems to be pretty positive, something I have little doubt the antis will find fault with. (I suppose they might also find fault with the fact that neither Shelly Lubin nor her cohorts were included, though interestingly, The Price of Pleasure doesn't include any of those people, either.)
And while this definitely can be seen as a pro-porn documentary, I think its pro-porn in the best sense – it doesn't look like a fluff piece along the lines of HBO's Cathouse, but rather a realistic, unflinching look at the porn industry as work and the performers as workers with a variety of motivations for being in the porn industry. Nor does the documentary shy away from the nature of some of the product, for example, showing Jim Powers at work on an installment of the White Trash Whore series.
9 to 5 includes interviews with some of the more articulate and self-aware voices in the porn world, such as John Stagliano, Sharon Mitchell, Belladonna, and Sasha Grey. The latter two I think are particularly important, because these are two very self-aware, interesting women who have been the target of some very distorted coverage by the mainstream media, which is often used as political hay by the antis as a result.
According to some of the reviews, 9 to 5 is still in the editing process and the version shown at the Montreal Festival is a somewhat longish cut, so it maybe a few months at least before this goes into regular release. Though, personally, considering who's interviewed here, I like the fact that they shot a whole bunch of interview footage and I hope a lot of it ends up being included as DVD extras when that's finally released.
Even more films
Yet another documentary on the porn industry, this time a short one, has recently been made in the Czech Republic, Who is afraid of Ashley Lightspeed?, which describes itself as "A little superficial reportage from the big superficial world of Czech porn business." This doc covers several figures in the Czech porn industry, but focuses on Katerina Strougalova, aka Ashley Lightspeed, a social work student who was quite active in web porn a couple of years ago, and who's still one of the more popular models in the Central European glamor porn genre. She had some publicity in the Czech Republic about a year and a half ago when some of the local tabloids decided to out her as a porn star, using her real name. This actually led to her university threatening to expel her on "morals" grounds, and I'm not entirely sure what the outcome of that was.
This film is actually viewable or downloadable in its entirety from the above-mentioned website, however, its entirely in Czech with no subtitles. If you're part of the 99.8% of the world's population that's non-Czech-speaking, you're kind of out of luck in terms of understanding what anybody is saying. Still, you can glean a lot just from viewing it, and I'm struck by how much the Czech porn industry looks pretty much like the American one.
And getting away from documentaries, there's a comedy/indie flick about feminist porn called Slippery Slope that's just made it onto DVD. An interview with the filmmaker, Sarah Schenck, went up a few days ago on the Hip Slope Mama blog and is worth a look.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
New Antiporn Documentary: The Price of Pleasure
Well, the documentary we've been hearing about from the APRF crowd for the last – what, 4 years, at least – has finally been finished. This was the one that was being put together by Chyng Sun a few years back, and more recently by Robert Jensen and Miguel Picker. Website here:
http://www.thepriceofpleasure.com/
Trailer here.
The press kit promises, "Honest and nonjudgmental, the film paints both a nuanced and complex portrait of how pleasure and pain, commerce and power, and liberty and responsibility are intertwined in the most intimate aspects of human relations." But one look at the who the writers are (Chyng Sun and Robert Wosnitzer), not to mention the obvious slant even in the trailer, belies the idea that there's anything "honest and nonjudgmental" going on here.
Witnesses for the prosecution are, not unexpectedly, Robert Jensen and Gail Dines, but Pamela Paul, Ariel Levy, and Sarah Katherine Lewis are also brought in to further the case against porn and the sex industry. (And apparently the much-circulated video of the anti-porn statement by Chomsky is from this film also.) Interestingly, the documentary also feature some pro-porn folks, most notably, our own Ernest Greene, who, based on the trailer at least, seems to get some good points in, though I have no idea what his original interview versus what made it into the film is like. Joanna Angel seems to be treated to more of a hatchet job, where they select some "worst of" moments from her videos and use them to undermine her statements. Similarly, statements from fans are selected to come across as very self-incriminating.
If anybody's anxious to have a look at it, its scheduled to play in Austin, Montreal, and New York over the next several weeks, and it may play elsewhere after that. I have my doubts it will have anything like a major release (1-hour documentaries usually don't), but, is scheduled for video release next month from the Media Education Foundation, but like other MEF releases, are only available to educational institutions at $150-250 per copy. Like the Killing us Softly and Dreamworlds series (also from MEF), its likely this video end up having a long life life in women's studies and "media education" classrooms, fueling misguided outrage for years to come.
http://www.thepriceofpleasure.com/
Trailer here.
The press kit promises, "Honest and nonjudgmental, the film paints both a nuanced and complex portrait of how pleasure and pain, commerce and power, and liberty and responsibility are intertwined in the most intimate aspects of human relations." But one look at the who the writers are (Chyng Sun and Robert Wosnitzer), not to mention the obvious slant even in the trailer, belies the idea that there's anything "honest and nonjudgmental" going on here.
Witnesses for the prosecution are, not unexpectedly, Robert Jensen and Gail Dines, but Pamela Paul, Ariel Levy, and Sarah Katherine Lewis are also brought in to further the case against porn and the sex industry. (And apparently the much-circulated video of the anti-porn statement by Chomsky is from this film also.) Interestingly, the documentary also feature some pro-porn folks, most notably, our own Ernest Greene, who, based on the trailer at least, seems to get some good points in, though I have no idea what his original interview versus what made it into the film is like. Joanna Angel seems to be treated to more of a hatchet job, where they select some "worst of" moments from her videos and use them to undermine her statements. Similarly, statements from fans are selected to come across as very self-incriminating.
If anybody's anxious to have a look at it, its scheduled to play in Austin, Montreal, and New York over the next several weeks, and it may play elsewhere after that. I have my doubts it will have anything like a major release (1-hour documentaries usually don't), but, is scheduled for video release next month from the Media Education Foundation, but like other MEF releases, are only available to educational institutions at $150-250 per copy. Like the Killing us Softly and Dreamworlds series (also from MEF), its likely this video end up having a long life life in women's studies and "media education" classrooms, fueling misguided outrage for years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)