I know I shouldn't look. But it's just a horribly grim fascination. Why yes, some people just loooove TPoP! They probably even think it's fair and honest and unbaised and whatnot.
Ah, crusaders...
You know, I am sure some people would say the same thing about me, that I'm some sort of sellout black knight fighting an unholy war...oh, wait...but you know, there is a huge difference between myself and a whole lot of these folk. A huge one.
I am not telling anyone they should view or participate in pornography. I'm not telling anyone they have to like it. Nor am I afraid to look outside my own sphere and see what other people are saying, to hear and read their experiences.
I also, ahem, do not stack my data, misrepresent the findings of various studies, or use material made 2-3 decades ago.
Or flat out lie about the most popular porn of the year 2005. Ahem.
Let it never be said I ever told any person what to do, what to feel, how to think, and used underhanded -and illegal- means to make my point.
That, I think, is a major difference between us and them.
A sanctuary for supporters of sexual free expression and the adult sexual media.
Showing posts with label NPNH. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NPNH. Show all posts
Friday, October 17, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Fair Use, 2257, and Double Standards: A response and challenge to NoPornNorthampton
Adam Cohen of NoPornNorthampton dropped by to comment here recently. As much as I vehemently disagree with NPNH and their allies, on many levels and on many issues, I do welcome his willingness to come by and debate. I will note that this blog is always open to those critical of our position. Likewise, I challenge Adam Cohen and others in the anti-porn blogosphere to show the courage of their convictions and do the same, something they are often not open to doing.
To start out with, Adam Cohen has posted a response to Renegade Evolution's long-standing contention that the anti-porn slideshow used by Stop Porn Culture and similar material on anti-porn websites (including NPNH), which show explicit pornographic images in order to critique them, are in violation of Federal "2257" documentation laws. Cohen counters that the legislation contains a clear exemption for "noncommercial or educational distribution" of such material, basically allowing a "fair use" exemption to 2257.
(At this point, I also want to point to an excellent post on this subject by Elizabeth at Sex in the Public Square. Elizabeth also respectfully takes issue with some of Ren's contentions about fair use and 2257.)
I think a lot of this debate flounders on confusion as to what the legal status of 2257 is at this point, having been amended and greatly expanded last year, only to be struck down in the Sixth Circuit Court. So what is actually covered by 2257 at the moment is unclear.
The original version of 2257 did not have broad application to "secondary producers", however, the amended version did. The "educational" exemption that NPNH cites may very well be in effect per the original version, however, "secondary producer" provisions in the amended legislation call this into question.
Adam Cohen accuses us of trying to censor anti-porn speech. That's not the intention of any of the writers at this site (or any other sex-positive activist site that I can think of). While I can't speak for everybody here, I'm actually very against the amendments to 2257, BUT, if this is to be the law, then the law MUST apply equally to all – no special dispensation for being on the "side of the angels". One of the major objections to the "secondary producer" provisions of the 2257 amendments is the potentially harmful effect that it will have on the sex-related blogosphere, who under the provisions of these amendments, might be considered "secondary producers" of internet porn and charged accordingly if not in possession of a full compliment of 2257-related documents. But the anti-porn folks, apparently, are supposed to get a free pass to show this material without such restrictions. This is nothing less than viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple, and if the 2257 laws are enforced this way, it only compounds the already-problematic free speech implications of such legislation.
To use a specific example, one of the sites we have on our blogroll, SugarBank,* is a prime example of the kind of site that would probably be targeted as a "secondary producer" under the amended legislation. Yep, its a pro-porn site with an abundance of porn imagery found within. However, its quite clear from reading the site that the images are used as a basis for discussion and critical commentary on various pieces of pornography and about the porn industry. Certainly not the kind of discussion and critique that NPNH and the like would agree with, but that goes without saying. Should the government get the expanded 2257 regulations it wants, what do you think the likelihood that a site like SugarBank will be granted the kinds of exemption and latitude that NoPornNorthampton and Stop Porn Culture seek for themselves? Should such an enforcement pattern come to pass, I'd go so far as to say that this would provide a strong legal basis for challenging the constitutionality of these 2257 provisions, on the grounds that they legislate unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
And this doesn't even begin to cover laws about not taking reasonable precautions to shield minors from material that's not age-appropriate. This is something John Stagliano is facing jail time for, yet this is also something that Stop Porn Culture and NPNH don't even begin to make such an effort to do when they show explicit images. Again, if you support such laws and the reasoning behind them, then why do you hold yourself above them? A case of "do as I say, not as I do", perhaps? Nor does this even begin to cover the ethical implications of using images of porn performers as poster children for a kind of anti-porn politics that, odds are, the performers in the images would not even remotely support if asked.
So, Adam, since you apparently have an interest in all this, and since you've posted explicit images on the NPNH site yourself on a few occasions, care to join me in opposing the expansion of 2257 to secondary producers, or at least support a broad exemption for ALL fair use and critical commentary of porn? Even sources that are highly favorable to the images in question? If not, I call hypocrisy on that!
* As an aside, let me once again give my highest recommendation to SugarBank and its proprietor, Sam Sugar – it you haven't checked out this site, you definitely should!
To start out with, Adam Cohen has posted a response to Renegade Evolution's long-standing contention that the anti-porn slideshow used by Stop Porn Culture and similar material on anti-porn websites (including NPNH), which show explicit pornographic images in order to critique them, are in violation of Federal "2257" documentation laws. Cohen counters that the legislation contains a clear exemption for "noncommercial or educational distribution" of such material, basically allowing a "fair use" exemption to 2257.
(At this point, I also want to point to an excellent post on this subject by Elizabeth at Sex in the Public Square. Elizabeth also respectfully takes issue with some of Ren's contentions about fair use and 2257.)
I think a lot of this debate flounders on confusion as to what the legal status of 2257 is at this point, having been amended and greatly expanded last year, only to be struck down in the Sixth Circuit Court. So what is actually covered by 2257 at the moment is unclear.
The original version of 2257 did not have broad application to "secondary producers", however, the amended version did. The "educational" exemption that NPNH cites may very well be in effect per the original version, however, "secondary producer" provisions in the amended legislation call this into question.
Adam Cohen accuses us of trying to censor anti-porn speech. That's not the intention of any of the writers at this site (or any other sex-positive activist site that I can think of). While I can't speak for everybody here, I'm actually very against the amendments to 2257, BUT, if this is to be the law, then the law MUST apply equally to all – no special dispensation for being on the "side of the angels". One of the major objections to the "secondary producer" provisions of the 2257 amendments is the potentially harmful effect that it will have on the sex-related blogosphere, who under the provisions of these amendments, might be considered "secondary producers" of internet porn and charged accordingly if not in possession of a full compliment of 2257-related documents. But the anti-porn folks, apparently, are supposed to get a free pass to show this material without such restrictions. This is nothing less than viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple, and if the 2257 laws are enforced this way, it only compounds the already-problematic free speech implications of such legislation.
To use a specific example, one of the sites we have on our blogroll, SugarBank,* is a prime example of the kind of site that would probably be targeted as a "secondary producer" under the amended legislation. Yep, its a pro-porn site with an abundance of porn imagery found within. However, its quite clear from reading the site that the images are used as a basis for discussion and critical commentary on various pieces of pornography and about the porn industry. Certainly not the kind of discussion and critique that NPNH and the like would agree with, but that goes without saying. Should the government get the expanded 2257 regulations it wants, what do you think the likelihood that a site like SugarBank will be granted the kinds of exemption and latitude that NoPornNorthampton and Stop Porn Culture seek for themselves? Should such an enforcement pattern come to pass, I'd go so far as to say that this would provide a strong legal basis for challenging the constitutionality of these 2257 provisions, on the grounds that they legislate unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
And this doesn't even begin to cover laws about not taking reasonable precautions to shield minors from material that's not age-appropriate. This is something John Stagliano is facing jail time for, yet this is also something that Stop Porn Culture and NPNH don't even begin to make such an effort to do when they show explicit images. Again, if you support such laws and the reasoning behind them, then why do you hold yourself above them? A case of "do as I say, not as I do", perhaps? Nor does this even begin to cover the ethical implications of using images of porn performers as poster children for a kind of anti-porn politics that, odds are, the performers in the images would not even remotely support if asked.
So, Adam, since you apparently have an interest in all this, and since you've posted explicit images on the NPNH site yourself on a few occasions, care to join me in opposing the expansion of 2257 to secondary producers, or at least support a broad exemption for ALL fair use and critical commentary of porn? Even sources that are highly favorable to the images in question? If not, I call hypocrisy on that!
* As an aside, let me once again give my highest recommendation to SugarBank and its proprietor, Sam Sugar – it you haven't checked out this site, you definitely should!
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The definitive takedown of NoPornNorthampton
Those of you who have been following the blogosphere porn wars are surely familiar with the rise of NoPornNorthampton as a major clearinghouse for antiporn writing. The context of the real-world political battle that NPNH emerges from might be less clear to readers, though rival sites MoPornNorthampton and TalkBackNorthampton have been pretty good about exposing "The horror that is NoPornNorthampton".
Now a Hampshire College student, Murial Barkley-Aylmer, has written a senior thesis, an ethnography of the porn wars in Northampton, from a clearly pro-queer and sex-positive perspective. Its an excellent piece of work, covering the porn and censorship battles in Northampton, MA from the early 1960s up to the present and presenting a thorough history of the players in the present battle, including the folks behind NPNH and MPNH. (Though, oddly enough, TalkBackNorthampton isn't mentioned anywhere, which is the one oversight I'd quibble with in this thesis.)
It pretty much pegs exactly what Adam Cohen and Jendi Reiter are all about, and describes how they "shopped around" for several avenues of anti-porn argument before siding up with the radical feminist one, a perspective that, not surprisingly, they were completely unfamiliar with until they got into this battle.
One interesting piece of Northampton history she manages to dig up is a forgotten episode from 1989 that might very well be titled "When Radfems Attack". This describes how anti-porn radical feminists managed to shut down Womonfyre, a lesbian feminist bookstore through a combined boycott, "direct action" campaign (eg, vandalism and targeted shoplifting), and threats of more direct violence (eg, firebombing). Ironically, this was a business that had previously managed to survive earlier attacks by religious right types. The crime that this bookstore was being punished for? Carrying feminist porn and erotica – On Our Backs, Annie Sprinkle, that kind of thing.
(I think this and a number of other violent incidents from back in the "sex wars" give lie to the idea that a really extreme and crazy form of radical feminism is something that solely exists as internet chatter. Anti-porn radical feminism was a very violent and scary movement back in the 1980s when it had the critical mass to be so. This is the reason so many of us, coming from various ideological perspectives, spend our energies critiquing what's otherwise such a fringe movement.)
Here's a radio interview with Barkley-Aylmer that serves as a really good overview of the thesis:
Bill Dwight Show, WHMP, August 14, 2007 (MP3).
(Interview starts at 12:00 minutes.)
Here's the thesis itself. To give credit where credit is due, NPNH is actually hosting the PDF of the thesis. Very big of them considering the work is very critical of them and pretty on-target:
NoPorn Northampton: An Interdisciplinary Ethnography Following One City’s Struggle with Pornography, by Murial Barkley-Aylmer (PDF).
NPNH gives their response here:
Hampshire College Thesis Explores Northampton Porn Debate; Our Comments
(NPNH's rebuttal is the usual mix of NIMBYism and extreme sexual conservatism dressed up as "progressive" and not really worth responding to. One point that is worth responding to, the charge that NPNH "bombards with information" and NPNH's counter that they build a strong case by presenting evidence. The problem with NPNH is that the information they present is an often-contradictory mish-mash of far-right, radical feminist, and pop psychology writing presented mostly without analysis or insight. Its the shotgun approach to argument – throw out enough charges and hope that some of them stick. This kind of "presentation of evidence" does not, in fact, amount a strong case of any kind.)
MPNH has a point-by-point comeback here:
NPN Responds to Hampshire Thesis: A Point-by-Point Rebuttal
And, an excellent comeback by Bill Dwight about the "adjustable philosophies" of Adam Cohen:
Bill Dwight Show, WHMP, August 21, 2007 (MP3).
(Runs from 19:00–30:00 minutes.)
Finally, Barkley-Aymler's conclusion is worth quoting, because its such a great "why I'm anti-anti-porn" statement:
Now a Hampshire College student, Murial Barkley-Aylmer, has written a senior thesis, an ethnography of the porn wars in Northampton, from a clearly pro-queer and sex-positive perspective. Its an excellent piece of work, covering the porn and censorship battles in Northampton, MA from the early 1960s up to the present and presenting a thorough history of the players in the present battle, including the folks behind NPNH and MPNH. (Though, oddly enough, TalkBackNorthampton isn't mentioned anywhere, which is the one oversight I'd quibble with in this thesis.)
It pretty much pegs exactly what Adam Cohen and Jendi Reiter are all about, and describes how they "shopped around" for several avenues of anti-porn argument before siding up with the radical feminist one, a perspective that, not surprisingly, they were completely unfamiliar with until they got into this battle.
One interesting piece of Northampton history she manages to dig up is a forgotten episode from 1989 that might very well be titled "When Radfems Attack". This describes how anti-porn radical feminists managed to shut down Womonfyre, a lesbian feminist bookstore through a combined boycott, "direct action" campaign (eg, vandalism and targeted shoplifting), and threats of more direct violence (eg, firebombing). Ironically, this was a business that had previously managed to survive earlier attacks by religious right types. The crime that this bookstore was being punished for? Carrying feminist porn and erotica – On Our Backs, Annie Sprinkle, that kind of thing.
(I think this and a number of other violent incidents from back in the "sex wars" give lie to the idea that a really extreme and crazy form of radical feminism is something that solely exists as internet chatter. Anti-porn radical feminism was a very violent and scary movement back in the 1980s when it had the critical mass to be so. This is the reason so many of us, coming from various ideological perspectives, spend our energies critiquing what's otherwise such a fringe movement.)
Here's a radio interview with Barkley-Aylmer that serves as a really good overview of the thesis:
Bill Dwight Show, WHMP, August 14, 2007 (MP3).
(Interview starts at 12:00 minutes.)
Here's the thesis itself. To give credit where credit is due, NPNH is actually hosting the PDF of the thesis. Very big of them considering the work is very critical of them and pretty on-target:
NoPorn Northampton: An Interdisciplinary Ethnography Following One City’s Struggle with Pornography, by Murial Barkley-Aylmer (PDF).
NPNH gives their response here:
Hampshire College Thesis Explores Northampton Porn Debate; Our Comments
(NPNH's rebuttal is the usual mix of NIMBYism and extreme sexual conservatism dressed up as "progressive" and not really worth responding to. One point that is worth responding to, the charge that NPNH "bombards with information" and NPNH's counter that they build a strong case by presenting evidence. The problem with NPNH is that the information they present is an often-contradictory mish-mash of far-right, radical feminist, and pop psychology writing presented mostly without analysis or insight. Its the shotgun approach to argument – throw out enough charges and hope that some of them stick. This kind of "presentation of evidence" does not, in fact, amount a strong case of any kind.)
MPNH has a point-by-point comeback here:
NPN Responds to Hampshire Thesis: A Point-by-Point Rebuttal
And, an excellent comeback by Bill Dwight about the "adjustable philosophies" of Adam Cohen:
Bill Dwight Show, WHMP, August 21, 2007 (MP3).
(Runs from 19:00–30:00 minutes.)
Finally, Barkley-Aymler's conclusion is worth quoting, because its such a great "why I'm anti-anti-porn" statement:
"To oppose all pornography, delineated from erotica by a self-imposed checklist, is to impose one’s own personal boundaries, sexual preferences and sex-political views on other sexual beings, without respect for individualized needs and positively-experienced pleasures. Regardless of who or what anti-pornography activism seeks to target, this indiscriminate condemnation always negatively affects those individuals who live their sexual lives farthest from the sexual norm. Nevertheless, to applaud all pornography, without concern for sexual violence, industry working conditions, and sexually transmitted infection is to esteem the right to free speech over the value of human life."
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
There are no gay men in the world!
NPNH has posted an article (original source) on "advice to parents of boys on the threshold of being teenagers":
:)
As you leave childhood, your old brain expands its focus to a new task. It urges you to get excited about girls. It hopes that someday you will pass on copies of yourself in the form of babies. As odd as it may seem, this is the number one job for the old brain.News flash: Gay boys are a myth, like unicorns and actual faeries of the winged sort.
Your old brain prepares you for this future task by making you “hungry” for anything that is related to sex.
In fact, your old brain thinks sex is way more interesting than eating. That's why sexual feelings can be much more intense than hunger.
When you stumble upon something connected with making babies – like a website with naked women on it, or some other picture associated with sex – your old brain takes over. It releases chemicals into your brain that make you feel like true happiness is just around the corner. It is like the feeling you get when you're about to open your birthday presents. This feeling is the old brain's way of giving you a big “yes!” for focusing on sex. As one man said, “When I saw my first picture of a naked woman I thought, ‘This is just wonderful!”
:)
Monday, July 16, 2007
Image that?
It seems that a APRF is annoyed that "us idiots" linked to her in a post. Nevermind there was no attacking of this person, no slander, merely noting that she had linked to NPNH, which she is allowed to do...
I find it odd that when one points out strange bedfellows, they become, flat out, idiots...
Interesting...
Also, yep, emails continue between NPNH's Adam and myself...I'll keep you posted.
I find it odd that when one points out strange bedfellows, they become, flat out, idiots...
Interesting...
Also, yep, emails continue between NPNH's Adam and myself...I'll keep you posted.
NPNH...
For those who ask what the endless pissing matches with NPNH have to do with feminism (though this blog is, of course, not only about porn and feminism), I just wanted to post a brief reminder that NPNH did, at one point, get linked in a Carnival of Feminists:
But my larger point is the linking to NPNH. While I strongly suspect that many anti-porn radical feminists do (or would if they bothered to take a long enough look) disapprove of some of NPNH's tactics and justifications, here again we see anti-porn radfems allying with people who have the same goal for very different reasons.
NPNH is one of those groups that latches on to feminist criticism of porn as one of many reasons they can round up to convince people to hate porn. It sits right alongside reasoning that has nothing at all to do with feminism. As Belle has said before, NPNH seems to be more about garden-variety NIMBYism than radical feminist analysis of women's oppression.
I still can't for the life of me understand why many APRFs are so, well, okay with allying with people who have the same goal but only on a completely superficial level. How the hell can, for example, NFAM link to Enough is Enough, whose founder is also behind the unabashedly religious-based and anti-gay Protect Kids without exploding from the cognitive dissonance?
On the one hand, well, yeah, if your own base of activism is small you will have to look the other way at some things. But on the other: okay, now that you've won, once your allies can turn their efforts to other indecencies like, oh I don't know, lesbian nonmonogamy, what's your plan? Can I see it, judge it, hear it?
Or are you still caught up in TheoryWorld, where somehow political "activism" against pornography isn't actual lobbying or working for bans, but a strange and creepy kind of "education" that does... well, as far as I can see, Jack Nothing to change society as a whole or shut down the industry?
The wonderful Sparkle*Matrix takes apart the apologetic Myth of Porn and the Cathartic Relationship, by means of an analogy to chocolate and some scary data. NoPornNorthampton notes the underrepresentation of women in the media, remarking on how silence can be construed as lack of dissent, rather than as a result of the difficulties in speaking that the powerless have.Sparkle*Matrix's post is also impressively thin on logic, in my personal opinion (while I see the point of comparing a woman to a consumable, and it's a very common one in certain radfem circles, I find that whole analogy shaky. To truly consume a person, one would have to kill her.
But my larger point is the linking to NPNH. While I strongly suspect that many anti-porn radical feminists do (or would if they bothered to take a long enough look) disapprove of some of NPNH's tactics and justifications, here again we see anti-porn radfems allying with people who have the same goal for very different reasons.
NPNH is one of those groups that latches on to feminist criticism of porn as one of many reasons they can round up to convince people to hate porn. It sits right alongside reasoning that has nothing at all to do with feminism. As Belle has said before, NPNH seems to be more about garden-variety NIMBYism than radical feminist analysis of women's oppression.
I still can't for the life of me understand why many APRFs are so, well, okay with allying with people who have the same goal but only on a completely superficial level. How the hell can, for example, NFAM link to Enough is Enough, whose founder is also behind the unabashedly religious-based and anti-gay Protect Kids without exploding from the cognitive dissonance?
On the one hand, well, yeah, if your own base of activism is small you will have to look the other way at some things. But on the other: okay, now that you've won, once your allies can turn their efforts to other indecencies like, oh I don't know, lesbian nonmonogamy, what's your plan? Can I see it, judge it, hear it?
Or are you still caught up in TheoryWorld, where somehow political "activism" against pornography isn't actual lobbying or working for bans, but a strange and creepy kind of "education" that does... well, as far as I can see, Jack Nothing to change society as a whole or shut down the industry?
Friday, July 13, 2007
And the reviews come rolling in...
- Apparently we have inspired Renegade Evolution and her allies to launch a whole new blog. – Adam Cohen, No Porn Northampton
- Scandalous I say, pornography is bad, right? RIGHT? The women who participate are money-grubbing whores and the men who watch it are shameless bastards. I really wish I could write that with a straight face, but something about people dictating what others do with their bodies just rubs me... and not in a good way. There is only one single possession that we enter this world with and as an adult I hardly need permission to do with it what I choose. – Sassywho, I never leave the house without incident
- Actually, that whole blog is just another really boring re-hash of the narcissistic enjoying spilling their tubes over one another. The blog agenda seems to be yet another one of total radfem bashing through yet more lies and misrepresentation. A bit like the porn industry as a whole, really - built on fallacies and untruths and designed for the utterly, utterly, boring, contemptuously privileged by the utterly, utterly, boring, contemptuously privileged. – Witchy-woo, Well I’ll Go To The Foot Of My Stairs…
The Blog of Pro-Porn Activism – scandalizing and polarizing the blogosphere since July 11, 2007! We aim to keep on!
The Latest from NPNH
Explaining why they use pornographic images without the performers consent....complete with pornographic images, right there, on their site, where children can see it, and read all the degrading pornospeak text that goes with it!
Who needs degrading porn when you can just go to an antiporn site and wank to it for free!
And no new mails from Adam, I guess we're done "debating"...
Who needs degrading porn when you can just go to an antiporn site and wank to it for free!
And no new mails from Adam, I guess we're done "debating"...
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Grimly Amused...
Okay, this both amuses me and annoys me at this point: Over at NPNH Adam (aka we, so far as I know I’ve not spoken to anyone other than Adam, yet still, the royal we), continues to refer to me as a “pro-porn blogger”…which, yes indeed I am, I am a blogger, I am pro-porn, hence, yes, pro-porn blogger. However, what he is negelecting, somehow, to tell his faithful fans & readers is…well, the sex biz? I am also an employee. Nudie bars? Worked in those. Jack-shacks? Those too. Bachelor parties? Did three last week. Porn? Made some of that. BSDM photos? Been in more than a few. I would think, maybe, this might be relevant information all things considered when trying to, oh, frame this “debate”? You know, the person who is not agreeing with you is actually in the business? And not even in marketing! Smirk. But an actual, honest to god working type?
I think that might be of some import, oh, the fact that in some way or another, I’ve been doin’ the sex biz thing for quite some time…over a decade in fact.
Imagine that….
You know, any one of y’all who happen to head this way from NPNH, I have a little somethin’ somethin’ maybe you should read…a little tale about a lab rat…aka, one journalism students crash course in the sex biz…which, yeah, isn’t all sunshine and light, but…it is a true story…
Lab Rat Part I
Lab Rat Part II
Lab Rat Part III
Lab Rat Part IV
Lab Rat Part V
Lab Rat Part VI
And yes, even after all that, I still like my job and wouldn't trade it for any other, and yes, I support porn...
I think that might be of some import, oh, the fact that in some way or another, I’ve been doin’ the sex biz thing for quite some time…over a decade in fact.
Imagine that….
You know, any one of y’all who happen to head this way from NPNH, I have a little somethin’ somethin’ maybe you should read…a little tale about a lab rat…aka, one journalism students crash course in the sex biz…which, yeah, isn’t all sunshine and light, but…it is a true story…
Lab Rat Part I
Lab Rat Part II
Lab Rat Part III
Lab Rat Part IV
Lab Rat Part V
Lab Rat Part VI
And yes, even after all that, I still like my job and wouldn't trade it for any other, and yes, I support porn...
....And Just In Case You Are Tired Of It, Still MORE From NPNh...
...straight out of Ren's blog, where she lays down the gauntlet at Adam Cohen's nonsense:
Now, this was my reply, which hasn't made it up on his post yet, so I shall share here...
"Adam, I have no problem with people trying to keep "adult businesses" out of their neighborhoods, especially strip clubs and the like, especially in small towns...People have the right to do that, attempt to keep them out. For instance, where I live, all sex oriented businesses are restricted specifically to commerical/industrial zones via the laws, hence, most strip clubs are in club districts, where they are hardly noted amdist the REST of the bars in the area...and most of our sex shops/porn stores are discreet, clean, and and not anywhere near residential neighborhoods....I also note that study is close to 20 years old....when a great many areas in the midwest, especially industry towns, were in the midst of a huge economic slump, crack was a major epidemic, and I wonder just how much that (rather than the wicked, wicked porn stores) had to do with the crime rates...And I live in a damn metro type area...big city to be exact, and I can tell you, people have more to worry about than the little store on the corner that sells smut and vibrators.
You cannot and do not have the right to babysit adults, however, and if they want porn, they right now, in this country, have a right to it."I mean come on...in 1989 we all still called Russia "The Soviet Union"...things have changed since then...
And really, don't get too flattered, NPNH, you aren't the only reason I made the PPA blog, trust me...Charlie was more the inspiration for that originally....
Ren continues on:
I would like to take you up on this thread: If people want to advocate harsher safety measures in the sex industry, better working conditions, for better treatement by law enforcement, making access to net porn harder for kids to get, things of that nature? That shows me they not only care about the people working in the business, but they care for the people who should not be looking at porn and whatnot...those are the folk who I actually think care about peoples "feelings"...
Then Ren responds to some suggestions that Cohen makes that would almost suit his purposes of bare tolerance of porn; Ren's response as posted follows for each one; and I have added some annoted comments of my own.
AG: I have some suggestions for improving the working conditions of porn performers. How do these strike you?
On porn shoots, a public health officer should be required to be present during filming. The pornographers would pay a fee to the city for this.
Ren Ev: Sure, that would be great, but chances are the "fee" would come out of the performers pay...and the health dept would probably have to hire a hell of a lot more employees, which comes outta tax dollars...I mean, are you just talking about for CA porn valley films, or every porn shoot in America? Cause i can tell you, porn is filmed everywhere.
AK: That wouldn't be such a bad idea....except that are you going to charge enough of a fee or offer such an public health officer enough support to actually do such a job?? And..will you be providing full insurance coverage for porn performers to offset the cost of such a bureacracy??
AG: Porn performers should be required to be regularly tested for all STDs they might reasonably be at risk for contracting.
Ren Ev: Nowadays, that is actually pretty common, testing for almost, if not ALL, STD's... from hep to herpes to aids, even if the companies shooting don't require it, a lot of performers see to it on their own.
AK: Ahhh...ever heard of the AIM Health Care Foundation?? They've been at the center of HIV/AIDS testing for adult performers for the past 10 years or so...and their tests are pretty standard and comprehensive.....and mandated by most performers. Other thing: what about those who simply run their sites away from Silicone Valley...how do you regulate them enough to test them??
AC: Condoms and other protective devices should be required when they will reduce the risk of disease.
Ren Ev: I think more prevelant condom use would be wise. I do not think, however, if performers who test clean should be required to use condoms if they do not want to...for instance, many porn stars are married to other porn stars...should Otto Bauer have to wear a condom whenever he does a scene with Audrey Hollander, his wife?
AK: Condom use should be promoted and encouraged?? Yes, indeed...by progressive health professionals and individual porn performers who choose voluntarily to promote safer sex. Condom use mandated by the government merely to serve the prevailing ideology??? I don't think so...especially since most conservatives would oppose such use as promoting "promiscuity" anyway.
AC: Excessively risky practices such as "ass-to-mouth" should be prohibited from commercial productions.
Ren Ev: Nope. AtM is something people do in their own bedrooms, as well as countless other forms of anal play which inovle a tongue or mouth touching or even penetrating an anus. I don't agree with banning certain sex acts if people are willing to perform them, and if, yeah, real people also do them, and all forms of anal play, including AtM, do actually occur in some peoples bedrooms.
AK: I second that with a "Hell no"....acts that people willingly perform in their private lives should be allowed to be seen on screen; just because some might get squeamish at the sight of AtM or double vaginal doesn't mean those who can perform it safely should be banished. What's next, Adam...should romantic scenes involving BDSM also be banned due to promoting "male violence and submission" of women??
AC: Performers should have the right to revoke their consent to the distribution of their image, up to, say, 30 days after filming is complete.
Ren Ev: I'd say two weeks.
AK: Make it one week for me, since most porn shoots only last one or two days, anyway; and most of the details of what will happen should be worked out before the contract is signed, so there should be no surprises for the performers. If they don't want to perform the act, they can just walk away and not get that paycheck.
AC: I welcome any other suggestions you might have.
Ren Ev: Well, if we are, in theory, going to send health officals, independent security people would be good as well, to insure no one is forced into anything. But, like the health official, that's a pipe dream. I, personally, think that the minimum age of consent for participation in hardcore (as in, involves penetration) porn should be raised to 21.
AK: Here's one of the few cases where I respectfully dissent from The Henchwoman. In my view, raising the legal age for performing in hardcore to 21 is a bad, bad idea; because it puts the blame on young adults who are considered old and mature enough to vote, old enough to be drafted to kill and be killed in war, and old enough to face adult penalties if arrested on felony offenses....but not considered mature enough to make informed decisions about their own bodies and about engaging in sex for pay??? Plus, what's to say that if the legal age is raised, then our already anti-sex culture decides that 21 becomes the new 18, and that since 21 year olds are considered not mature enough to handle the stresses (both physical and mental) of being sex actresses and performers, that perhaps we should raise the age even higher??
I respect Ren's concerns that young adults don't always think about the consequences of their actions and that a more mature attitude would be enhanced by waiting a bit later to engage in porn or sex work....but it still reeks of paternalism to say that one particular group of people should be considered not able to handle themselves in some matters but not in others.
But, that's only my opinion, of course.
Anthony
Now, this was my reply, which hasn't made it up on his post yet, so I shall share here...
"Adam, I have no problem with people trying to keep "adult businesses" out of their neighborhoods, especially strip clubs and the like, especially in small towns...People have the right to do that, attempt to keep them out. For instance, where I live, all sex oriented businesses are restricted specifically to commerical/industrial zones via the laws, hence, most strip clubs are in club districts, where they are hardly noted amdist the REST of the bars in the area...and most of our sex shops/porn stores are discreet, clean, and and not anywhere near residential neighborhoods....I also note that study is close to 20 years old....when a great many areas in the midwest, especially industry towns, were in the midst of a huge economic slump, crack was a major epidemic, and I wonder just how much that (rather than the wicked, wicked porn stores) had to do with the crime rates...And I live in a damn metro type area...big city to be exact, and I can tell you, people have more to worry about than the little store on the corner that sells smut and vibrators.
You cannot and do not have the right to babysit adults, however, and if they want porn, they right now, in this country, have a right to it."I mean come on...in 1989 we all still called Russia "The Soviet Union"...things have changed since then...
And really, don't get too flattered, NPNH, you aren't the only reason I made the PPA blog, trust me...Charlie was more the inspiration for that originally....
Ren continues on:
I would like to take you up on this thread: If people want to advocate harsher safety measures in the sex industry, better working conditions, for better treatement by law enforcement, making access to net porn harder for kids to get, things of that nature? That shows me they not only care about the people working in the business, but they care for the people who should not be looking at porn and whatnot...those are the folk who I actually think care about peoples "feelings"...
Then Ren responds to some suggestions that Cohen makes that would almost suit his purposes of bare tolerance of porn; Ren's response as posted follows for each one; and I have added some annoted comments of my own.
AG: I have some suggestions for improving the working conditions of porn performers. How do these strike you?
On porn shoots, a public health officer should be required to be present during filming. The pornographers would pay a fee to the city for this.
Ren Ev: Sure, that would be great, but chances are the "fee" would come out of the performers pay...and the health dept would probably have to hire a hell of a lot more employees, which comes outta tax dollars...I mean, are you just talking about for CA porn valley films, or every porn shoot in America? Cause i can tell you, porn is filmed everywhere.
AK: That wouldn't be such a bad idea....except that are you going to charge enough of a fee or offer such an public health officer enough support to actually do such a job?? And..will you be providing full insurance coverage for porn performers to offset the cost of such a bureacracy??
AG: Porn performers should be required to be regularly tested for all STDs they might reasonably be at risk for contracting.
Ren Ev: Nowadays, that is actually pretty common, testing for almost, if not ALL, STD's... from hep to herpes to aids, even if the companies shooting don't require it, a lot of performers see to it on their own.
AK: Ahhh...ever heard of the AIM Health Care Foundation?? They've been at the center of HIV/AIDS testing for adult performers for the past 10 years or so...and their tests are pretty standard and comprehensive.....and mandated by most performers. Other thing: what about those who simply run their sites away from Silicone Valley...how do you regulate them enough to test them??
AC: Condoms and other protective devices should be required when they will reduce the risk of disease.
Ren Ev: I think more prevelant condom use would be wise. I do not think, however, if performers who test clean should be required to use condoms if they do not want to...for instance, many porn stars are married to other porn stars...should Otto Bauer have to wear a condom whenever he does a scene with Audrey Hollander, his wife?
AK: Condom use should be promoted and encouraged?? Yes, indeed...by progressive health professionals and individual porn performers who choose voluntarily to promote safer sex. Condom use mandated by the government merely to serve the prevailing ideology??? I don't think so...especially since most conservatives would oppose such use as promoting "promiscuity" anyway.
AC: Excessively risky practices such as "ass-to-mouth" should be prohibited from commercial productions.
Ren Ev: Nope. AtM is something people do in their own bedrooms, as well as countless other forms of anal play which inovle a tongue or mouth touching or even penetrating an anus. I don't agree with banning certain sex acts if people are willing to perform them, and if, yeah, real people also do them, and all forms of anal play, including AtM, do actually occur in some peoples bedrooms.
AK: I second that with a "Hell no"....acts that people willingly perform in their private lives should be allowed to be seen on screen; just because some might get squeamish at the sight of AtM or double vaginal doesn't mean those who can perform it safely should be banished. What's next, Adam...should romantic scenes involving BDSM also be banned due to promoting "male violence and submission" of women??
AC: Performers should have the right to revoke their consent to the distribution of their image, up to, say, 30 days after filming is complete.
Ren Ev: I'd say two weeks.
AK: Make it one week for me, since most porn shoots only last one or two days, anyway; and most of the details of what will happen should be worked out before the contract is signed, so there should be no surprises for the performers. If they don't want to perform the act, they can just walk away and not get that paycheck.
AC: I welcome any other suggestions you might have.
Ren Ev: Well, if we are, in theory, going to send health officals, independent security people would be good as well, to insure no one is forced into anything. But, like the health official, that's a pipe dream. I, personally, think that the minimum age of consent for participation in hardcore (as in, involves penetration) porn should be raised to 21.
AK: Here's one of the few cases where I respectfully dissent from The Henchwoman. In my view, raising the legal age for performing in hardcore to 21 is a bad, bad idea; because it puts the blame on young adults who are considered old and mature enough to vote, old enough to be drafted to kill and be killed in war, and old enough to face adult penalties if arrested on felony offenses....but not considered mature enough to make informed decisions about their own bodies and about engaging in sex for pay??? Plus, what's to say that if the legal age is raised, then our already anti-sex culture decides that 21 becomes the new 18, and that since 21 year olds are considered not mature enough to handle the stresses (both physical and mental) of being sex actresses and performers, that perhaps we should raise the age even higher??
I respect Ren's concerns that young adults don't always think about the consequences of their actions and that a more mature attitude would be enhanced by waiting a bit later to engage in porn or sex work....but it still reeks of paternalism to say that one particular group of people should be considered not able to handle themselves in some matters but not in others.
But, that's only my opinion, of course.
Anthony
Oh see, it all makes sense now...
Stated in plain text right on NoPornNorthHamptons web site:
"This site contains documentation that some people may find offensive. It is reproduced for the sole purpose of supporting NoPornNorthampton's arguments."
(bold text added by moi.)
So that explains it, yeah? They just do think it is okay, fine and dandy to take the words of women willingly in the sex industry, with no regard to their feelings on the sex industry, or thier work, or what they do, or think, or support, for their own noble cause!
Especially when that cause supposedly cares about consent and the feelings of women in porn.
Ahem, I call bullshit!
"This site contains documentation that some people may find offensive. It is reproduced for the sole purpose of supporting NoPornNorthampton's arguments."
(bold text added by moi.)
So that explains it, yeah? They just do think it is okay, fine and dandy to take the words of women willingly in the sex industry, with no regard to their feelings on the sex industry, or thier work, or what they do, or think, or support, for their own noble cause!
Especially when that cause supposedly cares about consent and the feelings of women in porn.
Ahem, I call bullshit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)