We Saw It Coming

Did anyone really think AIM could hold out forever against the combined onslaught of AHF's rapacious minions, Cal-OHSHA's ideologically motivated abuse of state power, waves of nuisance suits filed by AHF's lawyers on behalf of anyone and everyone who might conceivably make a claim against the organization, the carefully orchestrated media campaign against it mounted by Michael Weinstein and his toadies at the L.A. Times, the whole madness of Ponrolinks being laid at AIM's door with no concrete evidence that it's in any way responsible?

Did people just take it for granted that AIM is indestructible, or that the so-called "Big Players" in porn would rush to its rescue?

Whatever anyone was thinking, other than Weinstein's crew, AIM has always been a fairly fragile institution with one very important constituency that's been little heard from amid all the smoke and mirrors - the performers. They're the ones who need it to survive, and will be in much greater danger if the bullies and bloviators finally succeed in killing AIM, because they're the ones who will be at risk if the highly successful testing and monitoring system that AIM operated for ten years, during which this industry had a total of four work-related HIV transmissions out of the nearly thirty thousand new cases reported in L.A. County during that time, finally closes down and some chaotic patchwork of test facilities with differing methods rush in to take its place. That is, unless AHF and their pals actually succeed in destroying independent testing altogether so they can land that contract with the state to replace it with their own as yet undescribed substitute system?

Only the performers will suffer if AIM closes its doors, and who really gives a fuck about them in all this political chicanery? Certainly not those who stirred it up to begin with.

I'm not ready to hang crepe for AIM as yet. It's still doing remote draws, reporting results in a day and still maintains the all important unified data base that tracks test results for performers and producers, but when you read this, you may come away with the distinct impression that the battle is nearly over and AHF and Co. have won.

If so, congratulations Mr. Weinstein. You'll have destroyed the system that kept performers safe without offering anything useful in its place. If one performer gets sick as a result, the onus for that lands heavily on your balding head.

Read it and weep:

http://business.avn.com/articles/video/AIM-Draw-Stations-Open-Future-of-Organization-Unclear-433382.html

Sex Wars (The Beltway Edition): AGUS Holder Whacks Out DoJ Obscenity Task Force; Wingnutters In Congress ERUPT: "Not So Fast, Hombres!!!"

In the midst of all the drama over the Condom Mandate, the Great Porn HIV Scare(s) and .XXX, this breaking story may have slipped under the radar....but it could have almost as big an impact as the other issues.

A major political firestorm is beginning to brew in Washington, DC, on Capitol Hill over the degree of priority of whether Federal resources should be used to continue the longstanding "war on pornography" that has been ongoing since the Meese Commission released their cooked-up findings in 1987. Since the Bush era, the US Justice Department has been using its Obscenity Task Force as the main tool for prosecuting and persecuting sexually oriented businesses and performers alike through the court system.

Well....make that was rather than "has been", because current Attorney General Eric Holder just last week decided that it was time to shut down the DoD/OTF for good, both as part of the broader goal of reducing the deficit and shifting resources to more fundamentally pressing issues and concerns.

Quoting from XBiz.com (full article):

The recent move by Attorney General Eric Holder to shut down the Justice Department’s Obscenity Prosecution Task Force set up during the Bush administration is causing conservatives in Congress to come out swinging.

According to reports, right-wing activists and anti-porn supporters in government led by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch are claiming that Holder and the Obama administration are soft on porn and are calling for a new crackdown on hardcore material.

The Obama team stopped any new obscenity prosecutions when it took over but allowed ongoing cases to continue even though the task force was officially but quietly disbanded earlier this year.

The final blow for dissolving the unit likely came after last July’s trial of John Stagliano when he was acquitted on all obscenity charges for lack of evidence. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon told the Washington Post at that time, “I hope the government will learn a lesson from its experience.”

Problem is...using the DoD to whack porn out of existence has ample support amongst politicians, especially of the Republican/Tea Party/Religious Right variety...and they aren't taking this news lying back.

But the dissolution of the DOJ's porn police is causing a stir on Capitol Hill.

Hatch's resurrected fight against adult began earlier this month when he and 41 other senators — that included some democrats —  sent a letter to Holder pushing for criminal cases against “all major distributors of adult obscenity.”

Hatch told Politico in a statement, “Rather than initiate a single new case since President Obama took office, however, the only development in this area has been the dismantling of the task force. As the toxic waste of obscenity continues to spread and harm everyone it touches, it appears the Obama administration is giving up without a fight.

“We write to urge the Department of Justice vigorously to enforce federal obscenity laws against major commercial distributors of hardcore adult pornography. We know more than ever how illegal adult obscenity contributes to violence against women, addiction, harm to children, and sex trafficking. This material harms individuals, families and communities and the problems are only getting worse.”

To be sure, the AG office is NOT saying that they won't pursue antiporn cases...they would simply transfer administration of them to a different division:

But despite the knocks against its effectiveness, the government said it is not giving up the fight against porn but instead wants local U.S. attorneys and the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division to handle porn cases.

Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said that the decision to discontinue the task force was made by the department’s Criminal Division, which is headed by Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer.

 “Re-incorporating the prosecution of obscenity violations into the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, as opposed to having a separate task force, provides for increased collaboration among experienced attorneys and agents, and gives our prosecutors the most solid foundation possible for pursuing their mission,” Sweeney said.

And the Justice Department didn't take Hatch’s letter lying down. In a response it said it “has charged violations of the federal obscenity laws over 150 times since October 2008, and has recently secured guilty pleas from defendants in several cases involving adult obscenity.”

The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section took over obscenity cases in January but has a carryover pending case against producer Ira Isaacs scheduled for May 17 in Los Angeles. But the Feds said the unit's greater priority is now focusing on the exploitation of children, child porn and obscene depictions of child rape.

In other words, get out of the business of prosecuting adults for producing and consuming adult porn, and stick to the business of prosecuting child porn and exploitation. Sounds reasonable to me, though one could question the notion of how hyperaggressive the child porn laws will be enforced.

But again, the Right wouldn't be the Right without the doctrine of getting into the uteruses and penises of everyone else who don't think like them, and defunding and punishing anyone who dares to question their intervention (see Parenthood, Planned)...and former OTF prosecutor/well known Porn Policeman Pat Trueman gives the game away as to the true motives of antiporn activists:

However, Morality in Media’s Patrick Trueman — a former obscenity prosecutor — disputes the DOJ’s claim of 150 recent obscenity prosecutions and said no adult obscenity prosecutions have been initiated under Obama.

“In various administrations — not just this one — DOJ has tried to sell the notion that it has a vigorous enforcement of obscenity laws underway.  A look at the cases, however, reveals that what are counted as ‘obscenity cases’ are in fact child pornography cases where the defendant is allowed to plead down to an obscenity charge. … To suggest that such cases are adult porn cases is just wrong,” Trueman said.

 And yes, Clones, that would be the same Pat Trueman who hosted that classic Pornography Harms seminar last year on Capitol Hill. the one featuring such antiporn lynchpins as The Ex-Slut Ministeress Lubben and Gail Dines.

Also, that's the same Pat Trueman who just last month sent a form letter to Congressmen and Senators urging them to sign up to his latest campaign blasting the Obama Administration for not beefing up antiporn activism and cracking down hard with more prosecutions. Although their media lists "over 100" legislators as signees to the letter, only 42 actual signatures are shown in their petition; mostly the usual Religious Right/GOTP figures and the typical right-wing Democrats like Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Joe Lieberman...however, a couple of head-turning Democats did sign as well: Senators Amy Kloubohar (MN) and Diane Feinstein (CA).

Interestingly enough, some of the signees are attempting to crawfish their way back from this attempt at adult speech censorship...particularly DiFi:

One of the signers of Hatch’s letter was [D]emocratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California whose constituents make up the bulk of adult production in the country.

In response to Feinstein’s surprising support of Hatch, Duke told Politico, “I have a feeling she’s going to be getting a lot of letters from our area. It’s political season and we’re an easy dog to kick, but Dianne Feinstein needs to understand that a good portion of the economy in California comes from our industry, and we pay taxes and we’re voting members of the community.”

When asked about her interest in the obscenity issue, a spokesman for Feinstein pointed to her support for several measures targeting child porn in recent years.

Actually, it's not so surprising to me, since DiFi has been trending more Rightward for years, and her current husband is the founding editor of Newsweek, which is also tacking hard Right as well.

The real issue here, once you cut through the BS, is that what Hatch and the Right are ticked at is that one weapon in their arsenal to regulate adult behavior and wipe out sex they don't like has been liquidated..and they just can't stand that. Oh, and also, one more brick to be launched against the Dems and President Hussein Obama of Kenya/Sharia/Moscow as "anti-Christian" and "anti-American", too. And...a nice way of squeezing folk for funding, too.

Focusing on abuse of children and prosecuting child porn might still allow for more obtuse attempts to silence more legal adult material under current child exploitation and "trafficking" laws (and keep in mind the current case involving Lupe Fuentes allegedly hiring underage girls to shoot vids; as well as the current brohaha involving Reality Kings and the lawsuit against them by the mom of the alleged 16-year old they shot videos with); but it would preclude the kind of hyperactive prosecution of adult that Trueman, Dines, Lubben, and others would prefer.

Either way, this could get pretty nasty soon. As always, we'll keep you informed with updates as needed.

Porn Panic 2011 Update: BREAKING: AHF Hypocrisy Exposed By TheSword.com: Push Condom Mandate On Others, But Sell Bareback Gay Porn At Home. Niiiiiice!!!

Oh, My. Goodness.

If this turns out to be true, it completely changes the game on the condom mandate.

Apparently, Mike Weinstein's AIDS Healthcare Foundation has just a little bit of a problem with walking their talk about forcing condom usage in porn. As in, making money off the sime bareback they would outlaw.

No, I don't just mean making money off banning it, I mean making money off of it directly..by SELLING it.

This story originated over at TheSword.com, a very respected gay male site; I'll just quote them. (WARNING: link to article which contains NSFW images)

Why Is Michael Weinstein’s AIDS Healthcare Foundation Selling Bareback Porn?

AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s Michael Weinstein, a fierce proponent of condom usage in porn and the leading force behind ongoing efforts to make condom use mandatory in California porn, owns and operates nearly two dozen “Out of the Closet” stores, including the recently opened Wilton Manors, Florida location. In addition to used clothes and furniture, this store is also home to an ‘AHF Pharmacy.’ Also available at Michael Weinstein’s thrift store? Used bareback porn.

When the store opened in 2008, Weinstein announced that “Ninety-six cents of every dollar raised through the Wilton Manors store and through ‘AHF Pharmacy’ will benefit AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s HIV/AIDS prevention and education programs in Broward County and statewide,” so selling bareback movies in that same store would be an oddly counterintuitive move on the part of an organization whose sole objective is to prevent the spread of HIV. And yet, here they are.

The bareback movies currently on sale at Michael Weinstein’s Out of the Closet in Wilton Manors include Bareback Joy Riders, Bareback Sailor Pimp, and Cum Inside Me.

This photo of bareback porn currently on sale at Out of the Closet (note: customers have to ask a clerk to view the films, which are typically kept behind a counter) was taken by Out of the Closet employee Ryan Dixon (a.k.a. Kameron Scott), a former adult performer living with HIV. Dixon took issue with AHF/Out of the Closet selling the films, so he brought them–as well as the subject of bareback porn and bareback performers–to the attention of Out of the Closet’s district manager, Matt Lamariana, who rebuffed Dixon, allegedly telling him, “Who cares?”

Yesterday, Dixon quit his job at Out Of The Closet, citing the bareback titles and Lamariana’s attitude. Excerpts from Dixon’s letter of resignation:

This letter is being written to inform you that the weeks of April 10, 2011 and April 17, 2011 will be my final two weeks with the AIDS Healthcare Foundation as a cashier at Out of the Closet. I have made this decision based on my experiences working at your store, observations about operations I have made and personal beliefs which I cannot compromise.

[...]

Out of the Closet is supposed to be a fundraiser, but to sell bareback porn movies behind the counter just to make money makes me sick. I confronted a fellow employee about it, then the assistant manager, and finally my store manager about not feeling right about selling them because of what this company is supposed to be portraying. When Matt was asked about it, he looked at me, shrugged, and said, “Who cares? It’s been made and they’re probably already dead from whatever they caught.”

As a former adult model living with HIV, that comment was the last straw for me. Are we not the same company that protests studios that make videos without condoms, but yet it’s ok to sell their movies because it’s ‘already made’?

A press rep for AHF/Out of the Closet confirmed to The Sword that porn is sold in some store locations, but couldn’t comment on Dixon’s resignation or the sale of bareback porn. Additional calls to AHF/Out of the Closet in Florida have not been returned.

The Free Speech Coalition’s Diane Duke, a frequent opponent of Weinstein and AHF in the ongoing battle of condoms in porn, told me that AHF’s campaign against the porn industry has never been about the safety of adult performers.

“AHF’s activities have always been about gaining power, fame and fortune,” said Duke. “This is the kind of train wreck that happens when a nonprofit loses site of its mission and follows the money.”

Now, understand that TheSword.com's stated position is in favor of the condom mandate and for ultimately banning bareback gay porn as a enabler of spreading STI's and HIV. So, it's not as if they're necessarily friends of the industry.

On the other hand, though...for all of Mike Wenstein's pontifications about how only condoms can effectively protect performers from HIV, he is, first and foremost, a sucker for raising money...and I guess that he thought that pimping bareback gay porn in Florida wouldn't get him caught in LA.

All I want to know about this is....does Ministeress Lubben know about this??  And if she did, then why hasn't she broken off AHF as violating her "Christian" ethics??  Or...is she a private fan of gay bareback, too??

We will be following this breaking story as it happens, of course.

Update:  Oh, nice....Mark Kernes at AVN just discovered this juicy hanging slider, and just hit it out of the park. His article for AVN is here.

Porn Panic 2011 Update #..Errrr, Whatever: LA City Attorney Nixes AHF Attempt At Imposing Condom Mandate Through LA Film Board

Remember that study that the Los Angeles City Council had induced the local city attorney to produce that looked at whether the city could force the LA Film Board to deny permits to porn shoots within LA unless mandatory condom usage was imposed?? That was the study that was forced when four LA city council members (all of whom took money from AIDS Heathcare Foundation head honcho and leading condom mandate booster Michael Weinstein) urged the council to unaminously investigate whether or not they could simply by feat force condoms on the industry.

Well, the study is now out, and the answer has been given. And it is, as expected, a resounding.....HELL TO THE NO.

I'll just let XBiz take it from there:

City Attorney Says L.A. Can't Enforce Condoms on Set

LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich's office has recommended to City Council to leave language regulating permitted porn shoots unchanged because it lacks jurisdiction to control them further.

"It is the opinion of this office that the current permit language covers the use of condoms on all permitted adult film sets to the extent that the city may legally do so," according to a letter sent to councilmembers last month from deputy City Attorney Kimberly Miera and obtained by XBIZ. "Based on the current permit language, along with the jurisdictional concerns in regulating workplace safety issues, our office recommends the permit language remain unchanged."

In February, City Council unanimously voted to instruct the city attorney to investigate mandatory condom use in porn movies. Councilmembers in December, with the insistence from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, introduced a motion that would require production companies to have performers wear condoms in order to receive film permits.  

While a City Council committee slated the issue for discussion today, the advisory to city leaders from the City Attorneys office will likely deaden the measure that was first introduced by Councilman Bill Rosendahl.

In the letter, the City Attorney's office said that while the LAPD has the authority to revoke adult film permits in the event the conditions of the permit are breached, "as a practical matter, due to issues of preemption and the high level of staffing that would be required, it is doubtful the City of Los Angeles can actively enforce the wearing of condoms on adult film sets."

The City Attorney's office also noted that the city is  preempted from enforcing the use of condoms on adult film sets.

"As it presently stands, the city does not have a public health office or officer, and has delegated those functions to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health," the City Attorney said in its opinion.

But the "Department of Public Health, however, indicates that it is Cal-OSHA, and not the city or county, that sets forth and enforces standards for workplace health and safety in reference to acute communicable disease control."

The City Attorney's office said that the issue of regulating porn shoots has been heard in council chambers as late as March 2005 in response to two adult film performers testing positive for HIV. But a resolution "ultimately died in committee."

In other words, Mike Weinstein and Shelley Lubben, you just can't use local LA government to force condoms down the throats of performers. It's either Cal-OSHA or nobody.

Now, it is true that the LA City Council could ignore the wishes of the Attorney and force regulation, but without the means of enforcing such, there's simply no way that that can be anything but a symbolic gesture.

I don't think that we will be seeing any pressers from AHF on this any time soon...they usually do their crowing when they think they've won, but are totally silent otherwise.

So....it's looking like those June Cal-OSHA hearings will be zero hour for when the tornado hits the sewage plant. Start stocking up on gas masks until then, people.

Why Porn Performers Deserve Their Humanity: The Fakery of Porn Wikileaks/Donny Long And The Arrogance Of Slut Shaming

[Originally posted over at my Red Garter Club 3.0 blog; reposted here with slight editing. As always, the views reflect my personal views and no one else's...unless you happen to agree with them. :-)] 

I have been a commentator and fan of the adult sexual media for pretty close to 10 years now.

I've seen porn starlets and stars come and go; some better than others, some prettier than others; some more successful than others.

Some get in it for the quick thrill of the fast money and the easy sex; then fade out never to be heard from again. A few stick around avd become professionals, even icons, whose personas and performances become frozen into the deepest fantasies of fans forever.

A few do become victims of their successes, getting caught up in the fast life of too much money too quick, and they suffer the consequences of their excesses.

Most of them, though, generally make their money, do their damage, live out their fantasies and dreams, and then decide that they've done enough and move on to different phases of their lives...attempting to become just regular folk living their lives.

Of course, the stigma attached to performing active sex on stage or screen or online follows them throughout the rest of their lives. It can be anything from a positive that drives their ambitions, to an albatross that feeds popular prejudice that denies them more "legitimate" employment.

In a truly progressive and sane world, their profession wouldn't even matter...they would be judged as any other person would ask to be judged: by their deeds and actions and their ethical treatment of people.

Unfortunately, we are far removed from that world...and even in 2011 it is still considered perfectly OK to condemn a woman or a man (mostly, the former) for having a sex life not redeemed by the usual conservative stereotypes.

Such is the case with the practice of "forced outing" a performer who would rather keep her/his private life/information out of publc view.

Forced outing is an issue that has long vexed sexual communities; with the conflict between exposing the hypocrisy of those who publically condemn and seek to repress nonviolent, consensual sexual behavior or media depictions thereof while privately partaking in the same behavior they would condemn in others; and respecting the fundamental right of privacy. It can be a tool of forceful social change when done properly; but it can also be, when taken out of control, a tool of social destruction.

In the case of Pornwikileaks.com, it's definitely the latter, in my view.

Their prototype, naturally, is the highly controversial and successful Wikileaks site that has been both praised and derided for revealing corporate and governmental crimes and misdemeanors.

The Pornwilileaks version, however, has a much darker and more sinister motive....laced with liberal amounts of racism, misogyny, utter hatred of performers...and especially deep, entrenched homophobia.

Their "About" page practically leaps out the page with gay hatred; stating that their primary objective is

“To get the gays out of straight porn and illegal gay pimps that have ruined porn and shut it down making condoms mandatory by the government now. The fag loving has got to stop. California is full of gay Mexicans and now they can even marry which is so wrong.”

Now, all of you know my opposition to the condom mandate as proposed by groups like the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), and backed by people such as Michael Weinstein and Shelley Lubben.

My opposition is based on respect for the performers' right of free choice and the fact that the existing system of testing and prevention mostly designed and run by AIM has done as effective a job that can be done under the circumstances.  I didn't say that the policy was perfect, only that it was effective, and that forcing condoms down performer's throats would be not only counterproductive, but also highly ineffective.

Yet, for all their professing of wanting to "save" porn, they really have a strange way of showing their it.

Their site claims to have the relevant information of over 14,000 performers, including their real names, current residential addresses, phone numbers, and even medical information. They boast that they would acquire and reveal information on performers' medical condition, including highly illegally obtained information on a performer's STI status.

The site also boasts of a section called "Category High Risk HIV", in which they place people which they describe as "either gay or [you] fuck fags".

And how ironic that they attempt to perceive themselves as opposing the condom mandate, when their actual acts in developing their "database" depends almost entirely on destroying the one organization standing in the way of imposing that mandate...namely, AIM.

You see, the reason Pornwikileaks has such a vast database of illegally pilfered information is because one of their agents were able to somehow break into AIM's database of confidential medical information...thusly making that info available for public posting everywhere.

And then there is the case of a man named Donny Long, whom has been rumored to be the front man
behind Pornwikileaks. Long was a former porn performer who broke from the industry about two years ago, but not before launching everything from a website to a message board casting all kinds of fury against nearly everyone. He has developed a reputation as a misantrope and a troll who basically uses every means necessary to out performers he doesn't like, and he has often used Twitter as his chosen weapon until he got banned due to complaints of stalking from those performers targetted. The language of PW is pretty much a mirror of some of the smack that Long has spread in the past in other venues. (For the record, Long has denied that he is the creator of Pornwikileaks, though he does defend its overall mission.) Opponents and victims of Long's wrath have formed their own website, DonnyLongIsAConvictedFelon.com, to counter his claims and correct the reacod.

Why is that interesting??  Because it wasn't the last time that AIM had their database hacked into and information released to the public.

Remember the case of Desi and Elli Foxx?? They were the mother/daughter performer/sex worker team which filed a public lawsuit against AIM claiming that the latter didn't do enough to protect their private info from being released to a previous forum which predicated Pornwilileaks. (Their case was settled out of court.) It was only a coincidence that the group most aggressively pushing the lawsuit just so happened to be the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, who aggessively favors the condom mandate and who would benefit the most from getting AIM out of the business of testing performers. Right...only a coincidence.

Another "coincidence" to ponder?? When gay/bi performer Cameron Reid (aka Derrick Burts) revealed himself to be "Patient Zeta", the performer who tested positive for HIV in the scare last year, it was that very same Donny Long forum who, claiming to refute his charges that he contracted HIV on the set of a mainstream video, (allegedly) put out a YouTube video of Burts with fellow gay performer James Jameson, as proof positive that Burts contracted HIV directly from "those fags". Jameson, for his part, flatly denies that, even going as far as stating that he is HIV-negative and has been his entire life. Interestingly enough, Burts/Reid found his way to the reach of AHF via some contracts, and now he is their biggest booster, as well as pushing the condom mandate while soundly criticizing AIM for not doing enough to help him during his time of need.

Once again, this may be pure coincidence, or it may be just a sign that Donny Long and Pornwikileaks might be in cahoots with AHF, Shelley Lubben, and certain other antiporn groups out to basically dissect the industry for its own ends..even if unwitting allies. I wouldn't put it against the latter scenario..though it's probably more the former.[Note by Anthony: That reflects my personal view and my view alone, not anyone else here at BPPA.]

The obvious issues arisen from this is whether or not AIM is a victim of a malicious racist hack bent on their destruction, or a serial bungler who doesn't know how to handle sensitive information (as former porn director/agent Mike South has written in his analysis), or perhaps even a secret participant in the whole chirade to silence those like AHF who want to overthrow them and impose the condom  mandate (as some commentators over at the LukeIsBack porn gossip blog have suggested).

But, while that question fleshes itself out, there is a much  bigger issue of how those who perform in porn and sex work are seen by the world as large. Unfortunately, in some mainstream venues, the idea that porn stars and prostitutes and even women who gambol in sex for personal pleasure can be seen as fully normal and human seems to be a very foreign principle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which brings me to the "slut shaming" portion of this blog entry..and the single, cold-hearted brain cell that is Chris Malyszczyk of Cnet.com, who wrote what he considered to be an analysis of the whole PornWikileaks saga.

Apparently, Christopher isn't a fan of porn, and that's his right and his perogatime...but what he says about porn performers being outed against their permission speaks volumes about his disrespect and utter loathing for them....even while he probably jerks off watching them.

For some reason, I am reminded of Eric Schmidt's dictum.

You know, the one that went something like: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

It comes to mind because someone whose motivations seem slightly troubling has taken it upon himself to be the Julian Assange of porn.

For there now exists a site called PornWikiLeaks, on which, as you might be able to imagine, certain intimate details of porn stars are displayed for all to see.

The site doesn't display diplomatic messages from one porn star to another. Instead, it attempts to offer a comprehensive revelation of who these stars really are.

Riiight. Because we all know that women who do porn are really diseased sluts and nuts who fall to their knees at the first sight of hard cock, right Christopher?? So, we have every right to know every nook and cranny of what they do, who they do, where they do it, and what disease they catch while they do it. After all, we can't have them damn fags and them "jigaboos" out there polluting normal people with AIDS and other diseases..'ya know, Verne???

And...it's only "slightly troubling" but otherwise totally acceptable for a rogue agent like Donny Long to basically harrass, stalk, and potentially abuse women and men who perform in porn merely because he has a racist/sexist/homophobic fetish, and because he sucked so bad as an aspiring agent?? All because...well, they're evil slutty porn girls?? How touching.

However, many of those who earn an often meager income from their carnal knowledge don't really want their neighbors to know what they do to pay the rent. Moreover, some have left the industry in order to become elementary school teachers or accountants.

So one can only imagine that when PornWikiLeaks reveals not merely their real name, but also address, pictures of their family, and phone numbers, they might just be a little upset.

Oh dear...maybe becuse it's non of those neighbor's damn business what they do?? Or, because the stigma attached to being a porn performer or an erotic actress (unless your name happens to be Kim Kardasian or Paris Hilton or Carrie Prejean) is such that even outright repudiation of your past doesn't prevent you from total embarrassment or even removal of your job and livelihood if your past becomes revealed?? Or, maybe, Chris believes PW to be an excellent way to score a quick and easy lay, since obviously these "sluts" are incapable of being human enough to say "No"??

And besides that, there is this assumption that most normal people are entitled to the right of privacy, of not having either the government or any business entity going into their panty drawers or bedrooms or personal information without their permission and approval But, we all know that sluts, like gays, illegals, inner city Black drug addicts, and other cancers of straight White American society, aren't worthy of having normal people's rights, don't we?? We don't want Big Government in our medicine cabinets or our uteri...but them other people?? No problem.

There is also a suggestion that it is the creator's intention to reveal the STD status of every single porn star, although this hasn't actually happened yet.

But where did PornWikiLeaks get this information? At least some of the leaked data may have come from a database at AIM Medical Associates, a company that routinely tests porn stars for STDs.

AIM told NBC Los Angeles that it is investigating. However, PornWikiLeaks has been going since December, so the investigation might simply be related to the sudden publicity the site is enjoying.

Still, AIM believes it has been violated just as much as the U.S. government. Its spokeswoman, Jennifer Miller, told the Beast: "I can't stress enough, we're victims of a crime. Just like the Pentagon and the FBI, we have been victimized and hacked. We are investigating and we will press all charges."

Oh, but who asked them?? They're just the enabalers of the diseased and vapid sluts who simply don't want to be revealed to be doing their dirty deeds...and besides, who the hell are they to equate themselves to the awesome power of the Pentagon and FBI under assault by the original Wikileaks??

Now, it has been noted that PW has pilfered from a variety of sources to build their "database", not only from AIM...even though it has been confirmed that  much of the medical info and a large portion of the other personal info is straight from AIM's database, which is indeed shared with porn studios as a means of screening out those who might by HIV+ or otherwise affected with STI's. However, it is also a fact that by law AIM is forced to immediately turn in any information about someone testing positive for HIV to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Services...which just so happens to be one of the agencies most motiviated to oust AIM and impose their condom mandate, along with the AHF and the state offices of Cal-OSHA. Not to mention the aformentioned suit by Mimi and Desi Foxx against AIM for not protecting their medical records from being revealed; and a later suit filed by AHF and LACDPH calling for AIM to release to them records about performers possibly linked to the HIV porn scare of 2009. Maybe AIM does have serious issues with handling personal data...but that doesn't excuse stealing their data and outing performers against their will.
It should also be noted that the 2257 laws imposed by the Federal government also require porn individuals and production companies to maintain detailed information about every performer for immediate release to government officials (the latter motivated by the myth of "underage children" getting into the industry following the Traci Lords debacle during the late 1980's; reinforced by the latest scandal in Colombia concerning current superstar Lupe Fuentes). Given the ease to which such information can be accessed and even traded, maybe it would make it quite a bit easier for any hacker to get sensitive information and use it to his own profit against the performer's interests??

But, again, that's a concern for normal people who are assumed to be fully human, not porn girls, sex workers, or other dirty sluts.  At least, not to Chris Malyszczyk.

The porn industry is undergoing considerable changes, especially with the huge proliferation of free online porn. Will the existence of PornWikiLeaks make some think twice about their chosen means of making money?

Or is the expectation now entirely reasonable that anything you do, anywhere, at any time could--at any moment--be revealed online for all the world to see, know, and, of course, judge?

In other words....does the Bill of Rights apply to everyone....or are porn performers exempeted merely because of their chosen profession??

In response to such claptrap, an actual sex worker who was outed by PornWikileaks named Maggie Mayhem was moved to post at her blog a thorough ass-kicking rebuke of Chris Malyszczyk and his slut shaming. The entire piece is worthy of a read, but I will give some snippage.

Let’s clear a couple of things up, hater. First and foremost this information was obtained from private medical records. It isn’t a coincidence that one of the major ways that we protect our health and the health of our partners was sabotaged. It’s a clear message: you are not allowed to have both a non-traditional sex life and good health at the same time. This was an act of terrorism. According to your words, hater, we should just sit back and accept this as proper order of the world. We should just accept that mainstream medical care excludes us and degrades us and that if we develop a community model of care that people will do everything they can to shut it down. I guess we should have thought about that when we tried to pay our rent, have a relationship, be part of a family, or go on living our lives like anyone else. We should have just known that someone would eventually think that they were saving California from “Mexicans and gays trying to get married,” by illegally accessing our medical records and posting them on the internet with our real names and an incitement for harassment against us.

Whether or not our industry is conventional has nothing to do with what happened. For example, I think that it is unethical to set up sweatshops in developing nations to exploit the local labor force. If I hacked into the HMO database for a major corporation with factories in developing nations and published the names and private information of thousands upon thousands of low level employees who worked for that corporation at any point in time on the internet alongside calls for harassment against them I would be immediately denounced as a deranged criminal who must be stopped immediately and that would be absolutely, 100% accurate. No one w0uld be debating whether or not those employees should be ashamed of working in retail. No one would suggest that the reason why they dropped their surname or opted for nickname on their employee badge was because they were trying to hide from their occupation. No one would speak as though they should have known that sooner or later someone would inevitably hack into their medical records and post their badge name next to their full legal name alongside libelous language and calls for harassment against them. We would solely focus on the actions of the deranged criminal and discuss ways that we can prevent that kind of illegal and dangerous behavior from happening again.

Like most haters, you’re getting defensive about the fact that people are calling you out for victim blaming. The opening and closing of an essay is prime real estate in a piece of a writing. It’s what people notice first and what they walk away with at the end.  This essay contained 538 words. The opening and closing  (103 words) constitute just under 1/5 (just about 20%) of the total essay length and both are dedicated to questioning whether or not porn performers should feel shame about what they do for a living rather than what actually happened or any form of compelling analysis. The reason that people are receiving this as victim blaming is because you opened your essay by saying, “For some reason, I am reminded of Eric Schmidt’s dictum. You know, the one that went something like: ‘If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.’” It communicates quite a bit about your priorities that you opened and closed your writing with a sentiment of judgement and shame.

Amen and a-women on that, Maggie.

Sad to say, many performers whom I follow and respect -- and some I even worship -- have  found themselves on that list of outed performers. In fact, anyone whom has used AIM's services -- whether they be in porn or not -- have probably had their privacy breached by this hacking, and they are suspect to being violated at any tiime. (Mike South has posted at his blog some means to which performers who think they ave been violaated can act to get their names removed, or to get PW shut down, and porn legal scholar Michael Fattarousi has also acted to bring legal means against Long to end the harrassment and stalking. Efforts by Long to intimidate and expose performers on Twitter have mostly failed in the wake of strong response by the performers themselves.) The resulting tragedy and its impact on AIM and on the current regime of HIV testing remains to be resolved; whether it turns out to be the concluding act in the AHF/CalOSHA/LACDHS takeover of porn testing and the condom mandate is still well up in the air.

However the results go, though, it still reinforces what to me has been one of my fundamental objectives that has driven my support for and respect of women who take the risks and enjoy the benefits of performing in adult explicit sexual entertainment: that they are treated as nothing less than full human beings, worthy of respect, free will, and accountability for their actions.

No woman -- not even Shelley Lubben or Michelle Bachmann,-- or no man -- not even Glenn Beck or Rush Liimbaugh, however I may loathe their political and social views -- deserves to be treated as any less than fully human. Maybe some day, we will apply that standard to porn/sexwork.  Some day.

[See also Violet Blue's rundown of the whole controversy at her Tiny Nibbles blog here. and also FurryGirl (of Feminisnt) with her perspective on how to protect your privacy from the 2257 laws here. Danny Wylde of Trev West Coast Fiction also has a nice smackdown of Donny Long over at his blog as well. ]

The Other Porn Panic: .XXX Gets Approved By ICANN...A Breakthrough In Protecting Children, Or Just Another Bustout??

Like I said...plenty to talk about today.

Alongside the potential shoe drop of the condom mandate, the other shoe threatening to drop on the porn industry actually did so this weekend.

The .XXX level domain, so loved by those wanting to screen adult content into its own ghetto to be exploited for their own profits, so hated by both sides of the porn debate (it's something when Morality in Media AND the Free Speech Coalition are on the same side on an issue); and so despised by many Internet geeks....was cleared for takeoff by the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the board that supervises and approves top level domain (TLD) suffixes like [dot]com, [dot]net, and others.

Never mind that both pro- and antiporn organizations had virulently opposed adding the domain, for their own reasons. (The FSC, backed by many of porn's biggest honchos, due to the implied threat of regulation forcing adult websites into the .XXX ghetto and the costs of acquiring a .XXX domain name; the antiporn groups because it would "legitimize" content that they would much rather wipe out via obscenity laws.)

Never mind that even the ACLU had gone on record against .XXX, citing the potential abuse by cybersquatters seeking to blackmail legitimate owners of .COM and .NET sites, not to mention the windfall for illegal "tube" sites wanting to use .XXX as a license to steal.

And, never mind the fact that the proposal had been reccommended for rejection by ICANN's own Government Advisory Committee, made up of representatives from several companies, and that a similar effort in 2007 was handily defeated.

What was the difference this time around? Well, the .XXX proponents sold the proposal this time around as a means of protecting both the adult content from censorship AND as a means of protecting children from unwanted access by herding all adult content into the .XXX domain and making it easier for censorware and filters to block access to such material.

Mostly, however, they simply flooded the board with lots of money.

Because a .XXX domain will cost plenty more compared to a .COM or a .NET ($70 for a year sub as compared to $10 for other domains), the process of forcing adult websites into .XXX will produce a virtual money forest for ICM Registry, the group which owns the .XXX domain.  According to ICM head Stuart Lawley, he's already secured enough presubscriptions from scared adult webmasters fearing piracy or censorship to rake in nearly $26 million...and that was before it was even passed.  Lawley has even boasted that the potential killing from .XXX could reach as high as $200 million...not too bad in a recession.

Of course, all this means nothing unless current adult webmasters are forced into .XXX...which brings me to the one political force that may be open to imposing .XXX: Third Way Democrats and "Moderate" Republicans.

Already, US Senator Max Baucus (he of the Big Insura Forced Mandate/Bailout, aka "Health Care Reform") has introduced legislation forcing ISP's to require sites to move all adult content into the .XXX domain or face criminal penalties; and I'm sure that others will follow suit. Though most on the Right (especially the TeaPublicans) tend to be closer to the "just ban 'em" position of MiM and Porn Harms, they might be persuaded to support ghettoizing adult sites into .XXX as a stopgap measure to hold them out until they get enough power for outright censorship. As for the Left...well, suffice it to say that their stance has been somewhat incoherent, but I'd say that the 'protect children while maintaining a space for adult sites" logic will probably prevail over them enough to get their support as well.

Unfortunately, merely slapping a .XXX domain on a site brings forth some real issues.

Like....what about blogs like this one (or The Sexademic, or Julie Meadows, or Tiny Nibbles) who are not necessarily sexually explicit in imagery, but who report on issues regarding porn and include linkage to actual sites??  Would Blogger or WordPress be forced to impose a .XXX domain on popular porn blogs, or sex-education sites, or even sex bloggers?? Or..would they simply relent and just purge adult content from their platforms like Facebook and MySpace have already done?? And...would antiporn activist sites like StopPornCulture.com get exemptions based on their ideology alone??

And...who would be the arbeteurs of what constitutes "sexually explict" and whether a site would meet the criteria of being forced into the .XXX domain and enriching the back pockets of ICM?? The Miller Standards?? A local censor board??  Congress??

Remember, Lawley and ICM can't make their killing if current sites can continue to remain in .COM or .NET and pay the much less yearly sub fees for renewing their current domains. But..if such a law was passed, couldn't the case be made that it constituted content-based discrimination to force legal adult websites to pay more simply to exist for the benefit of a private organization??

Oh, who the hell am I kidding....this is Max Baucus I'm talking about!! Same Max Baucus known for taking corporate money under the table from the health care companies...so why wouldn't he do the same with ICM and ICANN??

Either way, the issue is far from resolved, even if ICANN and ICM is already accelerating the process for .XXX domain applications. The FSC has promised full action to review and repeal the decision, and I'm guessing that the antiporn folks are already blasting the ears of their reps in Congress to stop this.

We'll see soon if this really does become a bustout...or simply a bust.

Violet Blue (of Tiny Nibbles) has an excellent overview of the entire sitch over at the ZDNet site...feel free to go there and read up.  Also...see Julie Meadows.

Porn Panic 2011 Updates: Cal-OSHA Moves Closer To Issuing Condom Mandate Regulations; Mike Weinstein Prepares His Victory Lap; And Ministeress Lubben Testifies...Again

Plenty to update you on this morn, so I'll get right to it.

First off, the Cal-OSHA/AHF drive for imposing mandatory condoms on porn shoots is beginning to reach its climatic showdown slowly but surely. Another hearing was held last Thursday (March 17th), and in it Cal-OSHA's Chief Safety Engineer Deborah Gold announced that a rough draft for proposed changes to the regulations concerning treatment of "blood borne pathogens" was being prepared for issuance at the next scheduled meeting on July 7.

Mark Kernes was at the meeting, and filed his usual standard analysis for AVN.com. Snippage:

"During the advisory meeting on blood-borne pathogens and other infectious diseases, hazards in this industry were discussed," Gold told the standards board. "These other infections not considered to be blood borne include chlamydia and gonorrhea and human papilloma virus, which is associated with cancer. While the barrier methods required by Section 5193 reduce the risk of transmission depending on the specific disease, they may not completely control the risk. Therefore, additional routine and post-exposure medical services may need to be adopted to reduce these risks. Over the next two months, the division will be working on a draft of a proposal that would specifically address the hazards in this industry and plans to have that draft ready for discussion at the June 7 advisory meeting that's planned for Los Angeles, and then, depending on that discussion, the division would then start moving forward on rulemaking or not."

After Gold finished her presentation, board member Jack Kastorff brought up a subject of concern to many adult industry performers and companies.

"As I understand our function, the Cal/OSHA regs are to protect employees, and part of the question here is, who's an employee, and if they are indeed employees, who is the employer? Have we verified that?" he asked.

"We make that determination in every inspection that we conduct, not only in this industry but in every industry," Gold replied. "But there are court decisions that go to that, that have found that [performers] in this industry are employees of specific producers or production companies or whatever. And we have found in our investigations enough evidence to move forward against individual companies on the basis that these performers are employees. ... We have had the advice that generally speaking, the people who are working in this industry have an employee status, whether or not that is recognized for federal tax purposes. It's complicated legally." [cited from full AVN.com article]

Complicated?? Not really, since there is NO precedent anywhere in California law that states that porn performers (even contract performers) are in any way considered to be "employees" rather than "individual entrepreneurs". But, the condom mandators never let that stop them, now didn't they??

Kernes also noted this other discrepancy regarding the proposed regulations:

Gold's mention of non-blood-borne infections prompted board member Willie Washington to ask, since the petition (designated Petition #513) filed by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) was specifically directed to the section of the health code dealing with blood-borne pathogens, how Gold's committee could be discussing regulations regarding those non-blood-borne diseases?

Gold responded that that had been part of the ongoing discussions of the committee, and the possibility of separating out those non-blood-borne diseases from the proposed rule changes was currently under consideration.

Of course..because this is NOT in any way about blood-borne pathogens at all...but about exploiting porn panic to impose condoms on performers against their stated will. And....getting paid.

You can tell that because the primary booster and benefactor of the condom mandate was rather quick to declare victory.

A group calling itself the American Public Health Association (APHA) immediately after the meeting sent out a press release all but congratulating the Cal-OSHA board on their stand and heartily endorsing the condom mandate, with nothing but praise for the efforts of AHF in protecting performer safety. Of course, from the language used in their press release, one could wonder if APHA wasn't an astroturf group invention of AHF itself.

The LA Weekly also posted their own article by Dennis Romero which seems to also endorse the condom mandate, though in a teasingly indirect way:

While California already requires condoms in porn (but doesn't really enforce the rule), the new language would specifically address "routine and post-exposure medical services may need to be adopted to reduce these risks" of contracting non-blood-born STDs, Gold said last week, according Adult Video News.

Sounds like mandatory testing to us.

AHF thinks condoms will be more specifically addressed. State and federal rules say you shouldn't be mixing blood at work. Sounds good to us. Cal/OSHA officials say that means condoms.

But state officials "are drafting rules that are specific to the industry" for the first time, AHF spokeswoman Lori Yeghiayan tells the Weekly

"It is our hope is that the amendments will make specific reference to condoms," she says.

The porn world in L.A. already tests its performers regularly. But that hasn't stopped diseases, including an HIV-positive scandal for one gay performer last year.

 Romero also included this statement from Mike Weinstein:

As a global HIV and STD medical care provider, we've seen it as our duty to pursue action on this issue of safety in the workplace--in these instances, unprotected sex acts taking place in albeit non-traditional workplaces--the porn sets located in the San Fernando Valley and throughout California. We heartily thank Deborah Gold for her tireless work on this issue and for speaking out publicly on Cal/OSHA's behalf last week about these proposed new safety amendments.

Of course...because going to performers' homes with syringes and vials and ordering them to give blood samples wasn't good enough, Mike??

But the Cal-OSHA meeting had its other moments as well. As usual, the industry was completely shut out, with only a rep from the Free Speech Coalition there to give the anti-condom mandate position any airtime. As usual, last year's HIV scare involving Derrick Burts was quoted as the main justification for issuing the condom mandate. As usual, the "22 performers tested HIV+ since 2004" Big Lie meme was quoted as fact, regardless of the real evidence.

And, as usual, Shelley Lubben was there to testify in her own special way for the "rescuing" of porn performers. (Hopefully, in a better state than her Cambridge debate debacle.) Quoteh Mark Kernes:

During her speech, Lubben claimed that she was "still suffering from the long-term effects of these sexually transmitted diseases and the other traumatization [sic] from the adult film industry. I was involved in many high-risk, unprotected sex acts filmed in private locations with totally unsupervised and unregulated porn sex where anything goes. I was coerced and forced into sex acts that involved things like double penetration, double anal, double vaginal, repeated facial ejaculations. I was required to work without condoms in order to maintain employment. When I complained, I was threatened with no pay, lawsuits, verbal and physical threats."

Although Lubben never complained to authorities about the alleged "forced sex acts" even after completing her short stint in the industry—17 movies between 1993 and 1995—she nonetheless told the standards board, "The scenario for young women is not unlike today, and actually, the work conditions are much worse."

"I know what these performers go through, and that's the reason why you don't see many of them here today: Because they're frightened," Lubben claimed. "Why is it for the past year when we've been having these meetings, only maybe a few female adult performers or even non-performers come? They're afraid for their lives, they're afraid they'll lose their jobs. Right here in Van Nuys, I've personally invited the porn industry to come face this meeting, and where's the female porn actresses to speak on their behalf? They're not here because they know that they're going to be threatened, and they're going to be blacklisted for telling the truth about what's really going on, and a lot of them honestly don't know that it is illegal for this kind of treatment."

Lubben went on to describe many current performers as "young, dumb females who couldn't read a contract," and who "can't even understand words like 'litigation' or 'arbitration.'"

 And...she brought some reinforcement, too.

The board also heard from another Lubben acolyte, Jennie Case, an ex-performer with a career even more brief than Lubben's: 13 movies over two years between 1994 and 1996—although she claimed that she been "in the sex industry for most of my adult life," leaving attendees to wonder how she spent the past 15 years after making movies.

"I performed in many adult films," Case claimed. "During that time, I contracted chlamydia, which caused pain in my abdomen, bacterial infections, urinary tract infections, a damaged cervix so bad that Planned Parenthood interns had to come take a look at it in the room, the examination room. Condoms were never used during this time, any time that I did any filming, there were no condoms used whatsoever. I thought I was safe, and of course, you can't complain, it's part of the job. The  job does require you to have other—many bodily fluids inside and outside of you including semen, and I fully support the blood-borne pathogens laws that apply to everyone, that you apply to the adult film employers in the adult film industry as well."

You'd think that Ministeress Lubben could find some performers that were a bit more recent??

Between this and the .XXX debacle, this may be a long year for the adult sexual media industry. 

Why This Blog Still Matters: Stephanie Swift's Conversion To The Dark Side, and Refuting An Anonymous Hater's Stupidity)

When I first joined this blog when Renegade Evolution created it in 2007 out of a desire to see pro-pornography/pro-sex viewpoints get their own vehicle to refute and balance out the distortions and lies put forth by antiporn activists (both the feminist "Left" and Christian fundamentalist Right varieties), I posted an introductory essay which explained why I thought that being "pro-porn" (or being anti antiporn) mattered so deeply to me. They remain as true today as the day I first wrote them, when I was merely a contributor and full-time commentator:

In my view, the majority of porn that is out there merely depicts sexual activity amongst humans that real people already enjoy immensely; whether mere acts of beautiful women and handsome men masturbating and touching and groping and tasting and kissing; or whether it's a full blown orgy of mass fucking and sucking; or whether it's merely a couple finding each other's hot buttons. Unless you are of the view that the activities themselves are somehow "immoral" and a threat to "society" and "civilization", it would be highly hypocritical, in my view, to come down on the written or displayed depictions of consensual and mutally pleasurable sexual activity amongst adults.

Plus, those who are so quick to condemn porn so gravely miss the most important reason for its existence: to turn people on and get people off. In a world that can be quite lonesome, cruel, and unfeeling, anything that allows a lonely soul or two or fifty even some minimal measure of pleasure cannot be so bad after all....as long as no others are harmed by his/her actions.

 Since that time, this blog has gone through plenty of changes. Some of the original founders, such as Trinity, Amber Rhea, and Verte, have dropped out and moved on to other venues; the founding mother Ren Ev got so burned out by all of the controversy that she basically has opted out for the safety of her own blog; and while many of the other original contributors like Ernest Greene and Iamcuriousblue will comment on occasion, it sometimes feels like this is a one man (or more appropriately, a one 'Dog) show, especially since Ren Ev granted me the powers of head admin in April of last year. There was even a time during a relatively slow period when I was at my lowest point when I even considered just leaving and shutting the place down due to what I perceived to be a lack of interest.

Then the HIV/Porn Scares of 2009 and 2010, Shelley Lubben, Michael Weinstein, and The Great Condom Mandate Debate arrived to rekindle both my interest and the debate over the legitimacy of porn in general...and business picked back up enough for me to continue on.

And, thankfully, this blog has become more and more a go to place for a point of view that usually doesn't make the rounds of porn debate circles.

Even better is that it seems that the acceptability of porn has began to make some fundamental strides in the real world, too. The recent media circus over Charlie Sheen and his "goddess" Bree Olson (not to mention his past history with porn/erotica starlets) has brought forth the immense popularity (or noteriety, depending on your POV) of porn's reach, as well as the recent loving testimonials of actress Cameron Diaz -- who openly stated her love of porn in a recent interview on Jimmy Kimmel's TV show -- and the recent victory of the porn-positive opinion in the recent Cambridge Union debate in England.

Nevertheless, it remains a long battle for people like us who see pornography as a potentially positive social and societal good to overcome the prevailing prejudices and assumptions about both the performers who create and produce sexually explicit media and the people who eagerly consume it.

I'll just give you two examples of what we are up against, and why we need to continue the struggle, so to speak.

When updating this blog this morning with commentary on the Shelley Lubben documentary post, I came upon a drive-by comment by an anonymous user that usually wouldn't find the light of day here, since it is not our perogative to give people who demonize and deligitimize us any more platforms than they already have. Nevertheless, his comment does say quite a lot about the prevailing attitude that folk like him have deep inside towards people like us, and just before I vaporize it to the Internet ether it belongs, I'll give it a bit of analysis. This was originally supposed to be a comment to Iamcuriousblue's initial post to the blog, "Why I'm pro porn..".

Not every Pro-Porn person is stupid...but every stupid person is Pro-Porn... So, if you are talking about a kid who knows her/his mom just have sex with all the men she met?? do you think that sexually positive?? porn people is selfish because they always talk about human rights, pleasure, etc...but there are so much people out there who want to have a great kid who make a good history of their country, not just to have sex with people.....So, that is why I said, only stupid people is Pro-Porn.

  Once again, I wouldn't even post this nonsense, except to show what kind of mentality we are up against here. You can literally count on both hands and run out of fingers on all the usual assumptions and strawpeople that our Mensa relies on to prove our "stupidity". Of course, porn starlets aren't the only ones who engage in sex with different men; in fact, I'd bet that outside of the job they are paid to do in performing sex scenes, most performers are strictly monogamous.  Heck, many performers are even monogamous within the scope of their jobs, only performing with their significant others or with women. (Funny how girl/girl sex escapes our commentator's mental grasp...I guess that he would see that as an asset for his voyeruism??) Besides, if a woman in or out of porn decides that she wants to engage in pleasurable sex with more than one person in her life, and she's willing to protect herself, what is it to us to deny or criticize her for that?? Even if it's more than one man at once??

And, oh, how funny, this "make a good history of their country"...as if porn starlets or sexually active women aren't capable of being successful outside of their sexual exploits. I mean, I guess that Nina Hartley only slept her way to earning that magna cum laude degree in nursing at San Francisco State University, right??  And, Vicky Vette's success in her early life as a mid-level executive and home builder prior to her entering the adult industry was only a myth in her brain, because she can only function when she's on her knees sucking Scott Nails; dick...am I correct,  Anon?? And, what about the many performers whom actually served their country in the military prior to entering adult...are they merely reducable to a bunch of silly sluts, too??

Maybe Anon needs to stop projecting HIS stupidity onto others and actually talk to and listen to active performers before he shoots his mouth off next time.


But, fools like our Anonymous usually come a dime a dozen, fueled by their willfull ignorance and refusal to open their minds to the world. Far, far more problematic and injurous are the progeny of so-called "rescue organizations" who exploit the same misguided beliefs and assumptions to exploit the many varied experiences of performers in order to both promote a reactionary, neo-Puritan agenda, and to get paid.

I don't have to reset the antics of Shelley Lubben since you know plenty about her....but you might not quite know about the XXXChurch.com ministry.

Founded by Craig Gross around 2008, this organization sells itself as a hip, cool, vivacious youth ministry who, like Lubben's Pink Cross Foundation, glams around porn conventions and awards shows attempting to sell their message of redemption and salvation from the evil dangers of porn. They also include a seperate ministry known as X3, which claims to "save" formerly promiscuous women back to a "Godly" life of sexual "restraint". In effect, they are the "ex-slut" equivalent to the "ex-gay" ministries, and their damage to psyches and escape from reality is equally recorded and appalling.

Unfortunately, they, like some sexual predators, will sense enough of a weakness from someone whom has suffered legitimate injury or psychological harm to be able to turn him or her against their better sense. Such is the case, I'd say, with Stephanie Swift, who is the latest former performer to fall victim to (or, if you have a different point of view, be saved by) the clutches of Gross and the XXXChurch.

Swift's story is indeed not a particularly happy one: an Hall-of-Fame performer who gained superstar status during the middle- to late-1990s with over 370 videos to her credit, she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2009, and began chemotheraphy treatments between then and the end o 2010. Apparently, while undergoing the therapy, she had a distinct change of heart and philosophy, and XXXChurch was able to impact her beliefs enough that she became "born again" and repudiated her porn past.  The fact that the industry had pulled together to raise thousands of dollars to help her recovery apparently didn't factor into her ennui, since she doesn't even bother to mention such generosity; only claiming that "having breast cancer saved her life". As if porn had anything to do with her contracting breast cancer in the first place?

Ms. Swift was quick to join XXXChurch.com upon her "salvation", and they didn't take long to publicize their newest convert with a vengence; a section of their website dedicated to Swift includes not only a brief written testimony, but also a video clip where Ms. Swift shares her joy of being "saved" and converted to "the blood of Jesus" via Craig Gross' organization.

Now...this is in no way intended to be an attack on Ms. Swift or her personal conversion of faith; like many women who find comfort in religion at times of stress, she is totally entitled to her views and beliefs, and she deserves nothing but the best wishes for her recovery, both physical and emotional.

On the other hand, though...the role of XXXChurch and their methods of targeting impressionable performers for shaming and humiliating, and especially for distorting and denying the legal experiences and beliefs of other performers not so willing to feel shame for their profession or their personal lives, is more than worthy of analysis and even some derision.

Until recently, XXXChurch was though up to be the "good cop", feel good style of ex-slut evangelism, at least compared to the more ham-fisted, Bible in your face, off-the-wall, fire-and-brimstone approach of Ministeress Lubben. Recently, apparently due to either the competition and publicity of Lubben or the recent HIV scares, they have become far more aggressive in both their pursuit of candidates for conversion and their hard sell techniques.  In particular, they have launched campaigns targeting active church members on their supposed "addiction" to porn, and how "porn addiction" negatively affects both individuals and the society as a whole. (During Super Bowl XLV Sunday, they hosted a campaign called "Porn Sunday", where they targeted churches throughout the country with testimonials from NFL players and coaches about the damages caused by "porn addiction".)

Their ministry is equally as aggressive in targetting young people who they consider to be especially receptive to their message about sexual shame and denial and the wonders of "modesty" as well as the alleged dangers of porn and mastrubation and all other forms of un-Godly sexual acts. The same webpage that featured Stephanie Swift also included another "story of grace" where Gross describes how his efforts to "save" Montana Fishburne from her recent porn outtings were taken to heart by another "18 year old girl" (funny how they are all "girls" even though legally they are adult enough to make their own choices, right??) whom supposedly was devastated when nude photos she did of herself on the Internet ended up becoming public against her will.

That in and of itself would not by much of a problem...except for the fact that like Ministeress Lubben, Gross and his gang are more than willing to stretch more than a few facts in order to sell their message of salvation from sexual sin. Lydia Lee (the former Julie Meadows) actually did a decent analysis of some of the more outlandish claims about "sex addiction" and porn's alleged connection with same, and came up with and throughly debunked some wild inaccurate claims. One such example:

• 4.7 million Americans visit porn sites in excess of 11 hours per week

If I Google “how many Americans visit porn sites,” the first link talks about privacy on the internet, the second talks about how the FBI uses fake hyperlinks to snare child porn suspects (bravo there!) – validating the first links suspicions about privacy? – and the third talks about how an adult entertainment company evaluated the backgrounds of people buying porn and, as it turns out in February 2009, anyway, more conservatives and religious people bought porn than anyone else. Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School states,

“Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by.”

This is the kind of thing that I find usually happens when I’m left to research other’s information.

Our interest, though, is in XXXChurch's essential denial that any porn performer could have an expierence or history in porn other than dire slavery or sin or shame. For obvious reasons, Gross' crew simply reduces the experiences of women in porn to its least common and most destructive denomination, as nothing less than the Devil's trial by fire. Apparently women whose experiences in porn were a bit more positive and fullfilling than Stephanie Swift's was are simply rejected as either tools of the Devil in need of prayer and shaming to convert them to "God's love", or simply dismissed as mindless sluts who deserve all the pain and hurd they're supposed to get...and the eternal damnation in Hell as well. Never mind that there are active performers in porn who are also regular churchgoers (Mary Carey, the former nominee for governor of California being an example), and there's also those performers/models whom have suffered tragic, traumatic life-changing situations and not quite moved to blame them all on porn or their sex habits (model Taylor Stevens currently fighting her own bout of cancer, for example). None of them will manage to make Craig Gross' salvation list...and that's quite unfortunate for him.

Of course, there are those performers who absolutely stand by their decisions to do porn; who see their profession as not only a decent job, but also an empowering, even liberating influence on their personal
sex lives...not to mention the nice paycheck and the means to explore their sexuality and their exhibitionism. Problem is, though, these women don't quite get the attention or publicity of the tragedies and tales of "defiliation" and destruction and salvation through Jesus (or through radical feminism) that dominate the conventional wisdom that flows from the dominant media. A few brave souls attempt to sell the idea that porn can be just as much a source of public good and liberation as it can be a source of tragedy...but most likely, they are simply shouted down by the fierce volume of anger from the antiporn crowd...if they are even allowed a place to speak to begin with.

And that's the main reason why BPPA exists today...to offer at least one more place where those who believe in the positive potential of porn can at least have a microphone to speak our peace. We may not have the money of XXXChurch or the stridency of Shelley Lubben or Gail Dines or the censoriousness of the GenderBorg radfems or the Morality in Media cartel...but we do have the commitment to accuracy, truth, and pleasure on our side. And sometimes, that all that counts.

As for the XXXChurch...well, I'll let Lydia Lee have the last word on them, since she says things so well.

What did irritate me about the confession (or testimony, if you will), was the point where she said that if there had been someone from the industry encouraging her not to do porn, she would have listened. I’m sorry, but I can’t think of a more disingenuous statement. People in pornography are in it because they want to be there. It’s too easy to blame an anti-porn porn person for not warning her. This gives kudos to XXX Church for being present at an adult convention. This may not be the blatant Lubben testimony of “The Devil made me do it,” “modern day slavery,” “I have herpes but God cured me,” schtick, but it still takes responsibility and transfers it onto someone else. I have so many mixed feelings right now. Sad because she feels she has to publicly insult an industry that made her a super star, heartbroken that she suffered sexual abuse, disgust that XXX Church is stooping to the same Lubben-esque standards of exploiting the model for more publicity and donations, anger that the general public does not know, especially by videos like this, that the majority of industry people are not seedy, weird losers that prey on people, and resolve to finish The Devil and Shelley Lubben and point at the exploitative organizations that mirror the porn industry. Pornography is a blatant and honest exploiting of the body. Honest! It does not lie about glamour, it does not lie about STDs and risk, and anyone in the world would tell you that. You don’t have to be from the adult industry to know that it’s not glamourous and that there is risk of STDs. That is the dumbest argument these ridiculous people pose. I lost a childhood friendship for wanting to get into the industry. I had no illusions about my choice to be in porn. And what did losing that friendship teach me? That she wasn’t really my friend. But these people exploit the soul. They exploit the darkest elements of human nature and offer salvation through your endorsement and donations, but they lie in order to do it, and I will take the adult industry over these heathens ANY DAY! I feel dirty visiting their sites, I feel gross watching them and listening to them. I wish Swift the best in her life, but I’m grossed out by these people and their tactics and the way they infiltrate an honest industry and use it because no one knows better. It is the most misunderstood and least exposed legal industry. They want it to go away so they can attack homosexuality and single mothers and all the things that don’t fit into a picture posed by a book they couldn’t possibly understand because of how old it is and how many times it’s been translated. They are obsessed. They suffer from addiction. Addicts need an addiction, and if you give up one, you have to replace it with something else, because that is the nature of addiction. Now their addiction is religion.

I’ve already heard some pretty gross things about Craig Gross. I won’t publish it because I was told in confidence, but believe me, he’s in the same league with the Lubbens of the world. I wrote about him on Mike South’s site, and I don’t care how many people like him. He is an enemy of truth. And again, I’m not against spirituality, but I am against the mass hysteria these people promote and perpetuate, and I don’t believe the man that I have read about would agree that idol worship and judging and giving money to people who promote such things is the only way to experience salvation. You know what I would like to see? Someone from the industry not sell out and kick it around just because they need a new gig. If Stephanie is happy, great, but the blame-shifting is sickening. It just smacks of bullshit to me. The industry rallied around her to raise money for her. I can’t tell you how many internet posts I saw about fundraisers and how many “Help Stephanie Swift” announcements… Certainly her fans were supportive? Did she talk about that in the video? No. No love. No love at all.

If only more performers could be as up front and unabashed as Lydia Lee. THAT, my friends, is why this blog keeps going...and thanks to women like her, will keep going strong.

"The Devil And Shelley Lubben" (A Whiteacre/Lee Production) -- Reloaded And Extended

It seems that Micheal Whiteacre and Lydia Lee have created a monster.

Their documentary series "The Devil And Shelley Lubben" has gotten plenty of rave reviews...and it's also  gotten banished from YouTube due to complaints from Ministress Lubben's peeps.

But, never say our duo doesn't react..they now have embedded permenant copies of their videos over at their site, TheDevilAndShelleyLubben.com, and they've made to embed codes available to anyone willing to share in the exposure of the many lies and deceptions.

And, they've even managed to create an extended version of Part 2, with additional testimony refuting Lubben's claims about rampant abuse in the industry.

Doing our part, here's the updated videos...and all thanks and credit go to Michael and Lydia for all they have done.

The Devil And Shelley Lubben: Episode 1

If you can see this text, you have Java Script disabled.

The Devil And Shelley Lubben: Episode 2 (extended)

If you can see this text, you have Java Script disabled.

"The Devil And Shelley Lubben" (A Whiteacre/Lee Production): The Definitive Takedown Of A Fanatical Lunatic (Updated)

[Updated....scroll to bottom.]

Well....what was once potential is now officially real and visible.

The previous post had promised an expose/documentary of Shelley Lubben....and today, Michael Whiteacre and Lydia Lee (aka Julie Meadows) have delivered on thei promise with the first two episodes of their documentary.

Needless to say, "The Devil and Shelley Lubben" packs the full punch.

Episode 1 gives us the background of the method behind Ministeress Lubben's madness regarding her views on porn and her history as a sex worker turned fundamentalist antiporn activist in denial of her own responsibility for her own actions and words.

Episode 2 goes into Lubben's pet theories about how porn inevitably leads to abuse and disease and rape, using testimony from active and former performers (including Nina Hartley and Lydia Lee/Julie Meadows herself) to directly and forcefully repudiate all of the memes she has sprouted and promoted. It also includes one of the co-stars of one of Lubben's videos refuting forcefully her claim of being "raped" in the shooting of said video.

You can find the episodes both at Mike Whiteacre's YouTube channel and at Julie Meadows' blog....but in the interest of full exposure, I will also post the vids here after the jump.  They are THAT damn powerful.

Just listen in and pass your own judgment.

 

Update (2-16-11):

The virus -- or, should I say, the antivirus -- seems to be spreading far and wide. Here's a sampling of the blogs/sites which have either reposted or commented on the Lubben documentary so far:

Julie Meadows' Blog (appropriate, since she co-produced the damn thang)

Michael Whiteacre (via his YouTube channel -- see above)

Dr. Chantelle Tibbals (Porn Valley Vantage - PVV)

Danny Wylde (Trve West Coast Fiction)

Monica Foster (via her blog)

Luke Is Back 

ZZ Insider (Brazzers) 

Tiny Nibbles (Violet Blue) 

Vicky Vette (via her VickyatHome Blog) 

A special shoutout goes to Mark Kernes Tom Hymes over at AVN, who just posted a very detailed summary/synopsis of the first two episodes.

 Bonus: A website has now been set up where you can see the entire collection of the documentary, as well as the preparatory trailer.

TheDevilAndShelleyLubben.com

One additional note: Jessi Fischer over at The Sexademic, whom also posted the vids at her site as well, is scheduled to debate Ministeress Lubben this weekend over at Cambridge University in London. Good luck, Jessi..and break her legs.  Figuratively speaking, of course.

As more sites/blogs post the series, or when the next set of vids comes out, they will be acknowledged here.

Update #2 (2-20-11):

Well..it seems that Shelley's peeps aren't too happy to have people outing her..because they complained loud enough to YouTube enough to have them pull Episode 2 from view.

Interesting that they focused more of their ire on the second episode, which was much less personal, than the first one??  Maybe it was because they didn't like the competition from folks like Nina Hartley, Melissa Monet, Lydia Lee, and Kayden Kross??

But, never fear, Clones...Mike and Lydia weren't born yesterday....they had a backup plan.

If the video doesn't appear, you can still find it here:

The Devil And Shelley Lubben" Episode 1 (Blip.tv)

The Devil And Shelley Lubben" Episode 2 (Blip.tv)