Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Porn reviews without any of the bullshit

Susie Bright has launched a new project: the Random Honest Porn Review blog. It's a site where people can submit reviews of porn, new or old, from all across the vast porno spectrum. And for $5 a month, Susie will even send you porn to review! Hot damn!

According to the site:
It doesn't matter if the movie is new or old, famous or unknown, terrible or eloquent.

Watch the darn thing, from beginning to end, and write us what you think.

There's a handy form to submit your porn review. It doesn't get a whole lot simpler than that.

Friday, September 21, 2007

In response to...


And what it referenced...you know, blonde whores forced to suck cock then fucked?

Yep. Pornspeak ain't always pretty or nice. Plenty of those sentiments up above out there. Yet, if one is looking for monsters, that's what they find. Kinda like the asshole in my post under this one.


How about some anti-porn airtime on these pornspeak taglines:

"Miss Adams is all over Euro like a twisted spider, and has him screaming in pain and thanking her for it at the same time. Euro is suspended, mummified, fucked with a dildo, whipped, gagged and generally broken down to his component parts by the crafty dominatrix, Claire Adams. "

"Sandra and breaks in newcomer tahiti boy, but things do not progress the way Mistress likes them. After a couple of grueling sets of whipping, slapping and merciless ass fucking, slave boy gets the chance to fuck the Mistress but She is not impressed. See what happens when Mistress Romain is fed up with a worthless slave.... "

"Mistress Aiden has a pain toy to play with. tao subjects himself to the sadistic Mistresses' whims at his own peril, and screams out over and over but his cries fall on deaf ears. Aiden's strap on fucking is as brutal and punishing as it is humiliating. She dishes out the pain at the most extreme levels before finally getting off on his face and leaving him to stew in his own burning humiliation. "

"'Pride is at the bottom of all great mistakes', she sneers as her fingers tighten around his throat. Mistress Claire makes dorian's nightmares come true in this erotic psychological thriller. Take a ride with Claire through an evening of interrogation, bondage, heel sucking, inverted suspension, strap-on fucking, and finally Claire literally puts her foot up dorian's ass. "

"Amazing beauty Tera Patrick gives an amazing performance in this sensual thriller"

"Beautiful blonde Tawny Roberts performs a seunsual strip tease on a piano"

"Tanned, toned, beautiful brunette takes charge of her lover, riding his cock and slapping his face"

Well, lookie. Many of them have names. Not all are blonde. Not all of them are even fucking. They are slapping around the menz. Humiliating them. And gods, look, "sensual" rather than "forced".

Pst. Vivid outsells Max Hardcore for a reason. Kink.com, ect. also specialize in roughing up men!

Way to go, asshole...

Porn Star arrested on rape charges.

Thanks, fuck head porn dude. Thanks a lot. Thanks for making what some of us are trying to do here so much easier, you stupid, stupid bastard. If you are guilty, I hope they throw the goddamn book at you and split your face with it. What the hell are you thinking? Contracts. Use them. Sober filming. Do it. You fucking asshole!

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Those Words Tell You...

...very little, actually.

Over at her blog, Ren linked to this screed by Heart, on porn and what it "really" depicts, means and says:

Blonde whore forced to suck c*** then f***ed!!
View Movie!!

....The 11 words at the top of the page tell us what pornography is about. It is about men forcing their bodies inside of and onto the bodies of women. It is about men forcing women to do things they do not want to do. Especially, the words communicate the interest men have in watching women being raped. We all know a woman is depicted in the film those 11 words advertise, but she is a dehumanized woman. She has no name; she is a generic “blonde,” a generic “whore.” The understanding and agreement between the maker and advertiser and the consumer of pornography is that nobody cares about the names, identities or lives of “blondes” or “whores” or any other woman being raped by men in pornography and nobody wants to know any of that. The agreement is that the porn consumer should be free to order up a constellation of body parts and the pornographer should stand ready to provide them. The agreement is the pornographer will provide images of rape and violence which humiliate and degrade already-dehumanized women whose names we do not know. The agreement, especially, is that this will be sexually titillating and exciting to the consumer. This is what real men want to see: “blondes” and “whores” being raped. Available for cash, at the click of a link.
I responded over at Ren's and thought it might be interesting to Xpost here:

I just... if these people had a shred of objectivity I'd just say to them

"okay, so I read that line ("Blonde whore forced to suck cock, then fucked," given that the context is *ACTING* not real force) and have absolutely no negative reaction to it and possibly a positive one. If the reaction is supposed to tell me all I need to know about how truly vile porn is, then what happens when my reaction is not the expected one? What happens when I'm thinking it would be hot to watch her, or to be the one doing the fucking, or to be her?"

The only answer they can give really is "you're fucked in the head," which is really not convincing to me given that pornography is such a successful industry. It seems really, well, freaking ODD that an entire industry would spring up out of misreading women's pain.

Yeah, there are sadists in the world or various stripes. And yeah, we've all got a cruel side. But wow are you saying something weird about humanity (okay maybe just about men omg wtf I said it I'm defending men take away my sister card now) when you're assuming that entire industries centered around sexuality function on stirring up dormant sexual sadism.

ETA: Actually, yes, I can see industries designed to stir up aggression, and I do think that rough porn is in part designed to do that (I still suspect it's also partially about shock/spectacle, "oh my look at THAT!", and not always consumed or produced with only aggression in mind.) But to me, stirring up aggression and stirring up hate are not the same thing. Wanting to forcefully fuck is not the same as wanting to rape.

Of course for some people those concepts are linked, and of course that's worth thinking about. And it's understandable to hold the position that if they're linked at all in anyone whatsoever, then it's irresponsible to create any media appealing to this. I don't hold that view -- I don't think media producers of any kind are obligated to never create anything that might have a bad influence on the worst of humanity -- but it's not an internally incoherent one.

What is incoherent to me is the notion that we all ought to react the same way to media, such that anyone senses upon seeing it what the truth about it really is.

I tend to think that when something stirs up a lot of debate, that's because there's a complicated phenomenon at hand, not because most of the world has blunted its instincts.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Melissa Farley's latest + Bound Not Gagged blog-in, 9/17

We only occasionally blog about non-porn sex work topics here, but this is simply a matter of focus on issues around porn. Other issues around sex work are important to pay attention to as well, though, and the issue of whether its OK to produce commercial porn using real human beings ultimately rests on the issue of whether its OK to pay for sex at all. The latter is coming under increasing attack, as illustrated by the publicity surrounding the release of a new report on Nevada prostitution.

Melissa Farley, Nevada Brothels, and the effect on the legal sex work debate

Recently, radical feminist anti-prostitution activist Melissa Farley published a report called "Prostitution and trafficking in Nevada: making the connections". Many readers are probably familiar with Farley's "research", since it is often used as a stick to beat proponents of any kind of legal sex work over the head with, whether that's legal prostitution, stripping, or porn modeling. The story goes that sex work is inherently a horrible form of abuse and that "90%" of all sex workers show symptoms of post-traumatic stress, want to leave prostitution, but are prevented from doing so by drug addiction, economic desperation, or some pimp basically keeping them as a coerced sex slave. These data were gathered mainly from urban street prostitutes and from very marginalized prostitutes in developing countries, but the findings are generalized to be applicable to women in any and all situations of sex work.

Farley's study of Nevada brothel prostitutes claims similar findings as for her earlier findings about street prostitutes, this time claiming a figure of "81%" (of a total sample of 45 brothel prostitutes) who want to leave prostitution, most of whom are supposedly prevented from doing so. This has been quite a coup for Farley, because she now has been able to claim that even in a controlled, legal setting, she still has been able to find damning evidence against the effects of prostitution. The report has gotten an enormous amount of attention in the press, most notably in a series of op-eds by New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, who seems to have bought completely into Farley's views on sex work. (Herbert's columns get a much-needed fisking in this post at Sexinthepublicsquare.) These columns, as well as a similar op-ed by Guardian columnist and dyed-in-the-wool radfem Julie Bindel, have gotten a lot of circulation around the liberal and feminist blogosphere, and a lot of people who were more or less on the fence on the issue have now come out against legalization of prostitution, for greater enforcement and penalties against customers, in other words, for the so-called "Swedish Model" of prostitution law. In an ironic turn, Bitch PhD even came out for the Swedish Model in a column on none other than Suicide Girls, a site that, while not exactly entailing prostitution, does entail a mild form of sex work that radfems like Farley would ultimately like to see penalized as employing prostitution. (Not to mention the exploitative reputation of SuicideGirls even among many of us on the pro-porn side.)

As the above example illustrates, I have yet to see many liberals or moderate feminists fully advocate the criminalization of strip-club customers or porn producers, or even make the connections about how their newly hardline stance on prostitution might ultimately implicate areas of sex work they consume or are otherwise involved in. Such implications are quite clearly on the long term agenda of anti-porn abolitionists, however, as the Captive Daughters report I blogged about last month makes clear. The fact that many of the leading sex work abolitionist individuals and organizations have their roots in the 1980s feminist anti-porn movement is no coincidence. The prostitution anti-legalization argument is getting some support now even among relative "liberals", and its only a matter of time before such arguments will be employed against porn and stripping.

Farley's methods

Just how reliable Farley's findings actually are is an open question. Admittedly, I have not seen a copy of Farley's Nevada prostitution report. (Basically, its a self-published thing by Farley – there is no electronic copy to download and an OCLC search does not show it to be deposited in any libraries. One has to buy a hard copy from her in order to even see the thing.) Farley states (in a September 7th TV interview on the LV news program "Face to Face") that she uses the same methodology as she did for her earlier studies, so presumably, many of the same criticisms of her methodology in those studies applies here. To quote from the Ronald Weitzer (2005) critique of Farley's methodology:
What about Farley’s own research procedures? Much is left opaque. In one study, Farley and Barkan (1998) interviewed street prostitutes in San Francisco. No indication is given of the breadth or diversity of their sample, or the method of approaching people on the street....No information is provided as to how these locations were selected, or whether alternative locations were rejected for some reason....Finally, though Farley lists the topics covered in the interviews, none of the actual questions is presented. It is especially important to know the exact wording of questions, especially on this topic, because question wording may skew the answers.

Farley reports (in the "Methods" sections of her various papers, for example, here) that she uses a combination of "structured interviews" and questionnaires to elicit information from her subjects. However, the raw findings are not reported, but rather, Farley distillation of those findings. Thus, when we are confronted with statements like "92 percent stated that they wanted to leave prostitution" (an answer that's open to some interpretation, in any event), we have no idea exactly what question or questions were asked and whether there this was subject to interpretation by Farley. Nor do we have any idea as to how Farley chooses her interview subjects. The findings may or may not be valid, but there's a lack of transparency in her methods that casts doubt upon them. And in the case of Farley's Nevada report, the fact that the thing is self-published would seem to indicate that there's been no independent peer-review of this study, a fact that does not speak well for it.

(I also recommend having a look at this recent comment (scroll down) by Jill Brenneman regarding her experiences with Farley back when she was still in the radical feminist camp. The comments on how Farley would elicit information and coach ex-prostitutes on their statements are very illuminating.)

One method of evaluating Farley's findings is simply to compare them to the findings of other researchers who have done similar work. As it happens, other researchers have had entry into Nevada's legal brothels and paint a picture a much more nuanced (if not entirely rosy) picture of Nevada brothel work. Notably, Kate Hausbeck and Barbara Brents have published a number of journal on the topic and are in the process of coming out with a book of their own on the topic, "The State of Sex: The Nevada Brothel Industry". (Brents also states in the above-mentioned "Face to Face" program that she strongly disagrees with Farley's conclusions, based on her own 10 years of research in Nevada borthels. The full interview with Brents from September 5th is no longer up on the Face to Face site, unfortuntately.) Also, Alexa Albert, who recently published an ethnography titled "Brothel: Mustang Ranch and Its Women".

That Farley seems to have a knack for coming up with a litany of horrors not reported by other researchers, combined with the lack of transparency in her methodology raises questions as to how much Farley's findings represent the ugly truth about prostitution and how much, as has been shttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifaid about Margaret Mead, is a talent for finding what she wants to find.

(Update, 9/17: Barabara Brents, one of the above-mentioned authors, has reviewed Farley's book here. Sure enough, it suffers from the same lack of methodological transparency as her earlier papers, and "presents none of the elements contained in social scientific peer reviewed research.")

Some responses

The "Nevada Model" of legal, controlled brothels has never been a popular one among sex worker's rights activists, as it places far to much power in the hands of brothel owners and corrupt local law enforcement, provides only limited protections for sex workers while limiting their freedom of movement and disempowering them in other ways. According to Alexa Albert, the brothel system has not succeeded in getting pimps out of the equation, and in the past, the brothels even required the women to have pimps as a condition of employment. (Farley's accusations go beyond anything claimed to date by other authors, however, claiming that brothel prostitutes are literally prevented from quitting and leaving if they so choose.) And, in any event, the legal brothel system is largely irrelevant in the larger context of Nevada prostitution, since it in no way legalizes prostitution where it actually takes place, namely, in Nevada's cities, particularly Las Vegas.

Nonetheless, Farley's study is being used as propaganda not for reforming the Nevada system and other poorly regulated forms of legal prostitution, but for paternalistic Swedish-style laws, that, while in theory decriminalizing sex work, nonetheless make it much more difficult for sex workers who are there by choice to actually make a living and at the same time, increasingly criminalizes sex industry customers, even those involved in entirely non-violent, consensual transactions.

So where are the voices of sex workers, especially Nevada ones, in this debate? Largely shut out of it, except as reported by academics and social workers who claim to speak for them. However, the sex worker blog Bound Not Gagged is planning a response this coming Monday evening, 9/17, starting at 6PM EST, which will be a response to Farley and the abolitionists in general. I encourage everybody to check it out, and contribute information if you have it.

Also, Ronald Weitzer came out with an absolutely excellent paper this month in the journal "Politics & Society". The paper is called "The Social Construction of Sex Trafficking: Ideology and Institutionalization of a Moral Crusade". It describes the sex trafficking issue as one that, while having a basis in reality, clearly has all the hallmarks of a moral panic. The extent of sex trafficking is exaggerated and sex work as a whole is conflated with it. Sex workers are being cast universally as unmitigated victims, while customers are entirely demonized, and all of this being done to advance the political agenda of a particular set of moral entrepreneurs, in this case an alliance of religious conservatives and radical feminists. The paper also exposes many of the myths and exaggerated claims of the prostitution abolitionist movement. Highly recommended, needless to say.

Saturday, September 15, 2007


I have a question for the het men reading.

I've noticed that several of IACB's comments on porn mention a division or difference between, as he puts it, "fans of girl/girl" and "fans of guy/girl." This surprises me, as every mainstream porn movie I've seen has included scenes involving women having sex with women and scenes involving women having sex with men.

But from the way I read (and very possibly misread) IACB's comments, there are two distinct subsets of audience, and they don't like and want to see the same things. They're described as two camps, sometimes even two feuding camps, in an odd way.

I don't think there's anything odd about preferring one to the other, or even preferring one exclusively, but I can't say I've ever seen or heard this mentioned by any other straight male porn user that I've known. I always had the impression most liked both, and some had a marked or even an exclusive preference.

So... how does this work? Do most men choose a side? Do few people watch, or like, both?

Friday, September 7, 2007

Is Porn Turning Awful?

Found this link through Amber, I believe. Basically a fellow (I think?) who's become tired of porn, thinking it's become the sort of thing anti-porners complain about and despairing of finding anything good. He offers a point-by-point list of his grievances, and I thought it might be interesting to compare it to some of my tastes.

Bear in mind I've not seen any movies in years... I'm mostly of the Netpornious Moocherious species ;)

My needs are simple, I think.

  • Normal looking people who at least look like they're having fun.
Define "normal." Right off the bat this worries me. Personally I had an anti-implants thing for a long time, and I still worry about pressure to get them. But I'll never think quite the same about them after a transwoman friend called me on it once when I was mocking someone's implants. I think there has to be a way to talk about both personal preference and problematic pressures (whee, she alliterates!) without setting up a hierarchy of bodies. As someone with a surgically modified body myself, I really ought to have been more sensitive to this from the beginning.

As far as looking like they're having fun: yeah, I agree there.
  • No one looking at the camera.
I prefer this too. It's very odd to me to see people who are having sex look away.
  • No movies that describe the women as sluts, whores, or bitches, or use the words "molest" or "gang" on the cover.
I suspect this is a personal trigger. For me, I don't really mind it. I'd like to see "slut" embraced in a more positive way, as it is say in BDSM circles where it's often clearly not an insult. But I'm not against the use of it at all.

"Bitch" is silly to me at best and anger-inducing at worst. I'd turn off the sound if I heard that, but probably not the video. Mute buttons + sexy music are your friends, kiddies.

As far as "molest," that one never bothered me. And "gang" just sounds intense and kinky to me.
  • No anal, please. Nothing against the act itself, but it's not particularly aesthetically pleasing
*blink* *blink*

*slight pause to say MOAR PEGGING PLZ*

Moving right along...
  • Not a big fan of the camera-between-the-legs shots anyway, or the extreme, can't-get-any-closer-or-she'll-swallow-the-camera closeups. I'd rather see the whole body and the lovers' growing arousal.
I actually really like those. I'm not big on the subtlety of growing arousal being the only experience. This IS about watching fucking, after all.
  • Woman-woman scenes that looks like they might be enjoying it. You know, with kissing and maybe even some foreplay before they whip out the 20-inch double-headed dildo or try to go up to their elbows.
I'm not a big fan of kissing. I like probing people's mouths with my tongue, but there really isn't a way to depict that on camera well. Forget it.

And... again, this is about watching fucking. Why do I want to see The Hair-Stroking Swoony Story of Lesbian Love, here?

I mean, I get the idea that what this person wants is more context, and I'm for that... but for me, good context doesn't come from buildup of story. It comes from being present in the moment. It comes from liking sex with other women, rather than doing it boredly to entertain males.

All the better, as far as I'm concerned, if being present in the moment means hard ramming fucking.

The one thing that bugs me about mainstream girl-girl scenes, aside from We Are Obviously Bored As Hell Hets is the cunnilingus. In order for the camera to see anything, they have to... vaguely point their tongues at vulvas.

Much as I like seeing vulvas (closeups are joy!)... get your face in there, people! I may feel sad your head's in the way, but at least I know the sex is real. If you want you can do some of the side-tonguing because you know I'm looking. But please, if the I have the tip of my tongue loosely resting on a labium thing is gonna be the main event, just (as much as I hate to say it) skip to the penetration, because there's NO POINT.
  • An entire movie without silicone or implants of any kind. Try it, I dare you.
See #1.

  • Women who don't feel obligated to stick their entire tongue out of their mouths whenever they kiss or lick anything.
  • Look, if you show me a guy pulling out of a woman's ass and moving around to her mouth, which seems to be the trend these days, you've lost me. Forget it, I'll turn the thing off and go watch cartoons. I mean, eww.
I'm not interested in that either, but I don't see any reason for eww unless I've reason to assume that there was no cut so he could clean his cock off. If there wasn't one, yeah, I cringe. If I have no reason to believe there wasn't, well, *shrug*
  • Women that aren't made up to look underage or like an 80's hair band groupie.
Not my taste either on those. Though the schoolgirl thing, as a whole schtick, I'm beginning to find somewhat cute.
  • Guys that look like someone you might not run away from on a dark night. Or a sunny afternoon.
Yeah, better looking guys would be nice.
  • Lighting that makes the actors look soft and sexy instead of plastic and poorly shaved.
Oh, are we still on the soft shit? While soft light is flattering, I don't want cutesy-poo washy lighting. Goddess save us all from that.
  • Sounds that weren't dubbed or forced. I'm sorry, no one moans with ecstasy while they're giving a blowjob.
You don't know many subs who love cocksucking, I don't think.
  • People grateful to get oral sex instead of standing there looking haughty and all conquerery.
Any particular reason why both together is a bad idea, here?
  • Movies that don't have the same sex acts, in the same order, every time.
  • And, hardest to find of all...playfulness! I have absolutely no interest in watching people fuck who look too fake, too insensitive, too shallow, or too scary. Don't fun people fuck? In front of a camera, I mean?
Yes, I'd love to see more playfulness in general as well.

The fascinating thing to me about this post is the sheer vanillaness of the way this person talks. And that if he is a man, his tastes are so much more soft and sweet than mine are. Where the stereotype is, y'know, men aren't for the cuddling and the foreplay and all. Especially not in their taste for pr0nz.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against soft and sweet personally. A lot of it is quite good-mood-inducing. But I have a hard time understanding why most porn should be like that. When I want to see porn, I want to see sex, not the intricacies of other people's foreplay.

Intricate dances of desire work better for me in lit -- and even there, too much coy courtship dancing and I lose interest (unless it's one of those rare gems that is worthwhile both as a story AND as smut, with rich characters whose lives I want to know more about regardless of the sex.)

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

The Hateration Toward Jenna (or, How To Totally Trash a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale)

UPDATE: And now, you don't even have to be a porn star or even a sex worker to feel the hate of slut-shaming; simply being an attactive woman and wearing the wrong clothing in an airplane will do just fine. Ask Kyla Ebbert.

It is hardly surprising that porn performers, like most women who openly display a love of sex for its own sake not controlled by traditional conditions, are usually treated by the broader conventional public as less than worthy of full womanhood, if not full humanity. This most recent example proves this point perfectly.

Kim of Bastante Already recently posted on the rough treatment that some commentators at the D-Listed site gave modern day porn legend Jenna Jameson, who recently announced her retirement after almost 5 years of being practically the main spokesperson and flagbearer for the sex film biz. Jenna had recently gone through a nasty divorce with her first husband/producer Jay Grbina (sp??); and had basically reduced her presence in porn to mostly producing other models and performers in her "Club Jenna" stable; she even went as far as to remove her breast implants. The D-Listed article noted Jenna's stated vow to go into runway modeling as a future venture; but mostly made thinly-veiled crackbacks at her weight, all but calling her anorexic. As bad as the original post was, the comments were that much worse, most of them alluding not so subtly to her former profession in the usual highly negative ways. Some samples, as originally snipped by Kim:

"Jenna is a skinny skank. And she is too old to be launching a modeling career unless it's for the AARP magazine."

She's actually 42, BTW.
"Bitch your old, used, and abused."
"She is just old and used."

Funny, but don't porn starlets usualy get "old and used" once they reach, say, 25??

Some decided to go after the "She's got AIDS" card:
"Homegirl looks diseased. What's she modeling for, AZT?"

"I'm still not sure why 'AIDS' doesn't appear beneath every photo of her."

"She has taken too many cumtox injections, and has got the fuckin aids. "

Yeah, you heard right..."cumtox injections". Because, you know, porn starlets who happen to be skinnier than average surely must be passing HIV/AIDS to everyone. No other explanation needed here.

Then there were the sanctomonious takes on Jenna not deserving noteriety:

"bitch, no way in hell are u a model. did she suck a dick to get onto a runway? she's hideous! and its a shame, because she used to at least be a pretty slut. now she's just a slut."

"Here's the thing "jenna", people who drink cum for a living don't get to tell others what to think or say."

Notice her name placed within quotes....because porn performers are apparantly too dumb and too slutty and too "skanky" to use their real names, therefore, "Jenna" must be a pseudonym.

And of course, since she has no talent or brains apparantly, she can only fuck her way onto the runway:

"it doesn't exactly work that way, jenna. you don't go from flashing your pussy in porn to fashion icon. stuck to what you know -- cunt and dick and stds."

"Jenna, honey, Cum is not a substitute for food."

"Who does this cumbubbling idiot thinks she's fooling? "

"Tito, you left your wife and kids for that cum receptacle?"

"I like to use the term *used up fuckhole* as an insult on her but, geez - that is actually her profession. It's probably stated in her passport."

"Well, I guess she can model dried cum on her jutting breat (sic) bones. Jenna--you're a whore and nothing more."
You do get the picture now, do you??

But the prize goes to the prim and proper female poster who decided to add this bit of wisdom:

"I cannot even imagine letting some random dudes fuck me on camera...my skin just crawls at the thought. How can she stand it? How can ANYONE stand it, for that matter? How insecure and messed-up do you have to be to be a fucking PORN STAR? I mean, JESUS! When did having brains, class, and intelligence go out of style? When did it become all about how thin, famous and rich you are? Sometimes society makes me sick. I'm sorry, but I prefer to have self-esteem and self-respect over fame and an eating disorder. Can you imagine having your pussy so blown out that you need reconstructive surgery on it? Can you imagine having to wear adult diapers because your asshole is so worn out from constant anal penetration? EW! How does she live with herself?"
Now, let us put aside the juxtaposition of "fucking" with "JESUS!"; or the notion that only Jenna Jameson (rather than Jenna Bush or Paris Hilton or Nicole Ritchie) should be the sole representative of evol society corrupting women's morals....and I thought that only right-wing Republican senators from Louisiana were into adult diapers!! It's the whole "loose pussy"/torn anal cavity" thing that gets me....as if this woman has never heard the notion that most porn performers don't have vagioplasties and that anal sex does not necessarilylead to ripped bowels.

But of course, all this is simply the usual brand of slut-hating and sex-shaming that all "decent" men and women impose on women who like sex more than the usual standards would allow.

There was one commentator, however, who did manage a decent defense of Jenna:

"God, it annoys me how sexist people can be.

'Since when did a chick who gets paid to fuck become worthy of any kind of celebrity status?" 'Here's the thing 'jenna', people who drink cum for a living don't get to tell others what to think or say.'

What I find interesting here is that the people who say things like this are the same people who made her a porn icon by jacking off to her videos in the first place. You can't have it both ways - you can't jack off to her in private and bash her rights as a human being in public. Pick a fucking lane! Just because she worked in the sex industry does not mean that she's sub-human and does not have the same rights and liberties as anyone else in the world."
Now, that's a pretty damn good point she raised.....interesting that many of the same people who are so viseral in their distaste of porn actresses and generally "slutty" women are the very same ones who would most desire them. It's the old "I really HATE you because you fuck other people and you won't fuck me..but I'm so hot for you at the same time, and I just can't stand it!!" In a way, it's similar to homophobic men masking their inner desire to see a hard dick and actually want to suck it....but loathing their inner gayness by outwardly spreading such fear and loathing; the "ex-gay" ministries make their political living off such conflicts; as does the more rabid antipornfeminists and other such "Puritan radicals".

Just goes to show you how deep antisex attitudes run in this culture....and how much of a struggle we must face as sex-positives. Contrary to rumor, being an openly sexual individual AND insisting on your right to be treated as a full human being is still quite a radical notion. But radical we must be, for anything less results in tyranny and repression...and not even Jenna's economic success will help her avoid the Scarlet Letter branding of "SLUT!!!"

Jenna Jameson may need a salad or two....but she doesn't need or deserve such bullshit like this.