How To Run A Smear Campaign: The AHF War On Porn..Errrrrrrr...Condom Mandate Campaign EXPOSED Via Email Dump

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

LA Porn Panic 2011/2012: The Series Continues: Mike Weinstein Gets His Condom Mandate Initiative On LA Ballot For Next June

Things are now about to get real, folks.

Yesterday, Michael Weinstein of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation released a press statement and had a press conference announcing that his proposed initiative mandating condom usage for all porn shoots in the greater Los Angeles area had gotten past the necessary 48,000 signatures to appear in the ballot for June of next year.

The presser was done to coincide with World AIDS Day (yes, because you know that only porn stars and gay men get HIV/AIDS, get it???) and to give Weinstein yet another chance to play verbal roulette with the truth.

Using his dedicated front group, the oxymoronically acronymed "F.A.I.R" ("For Adult Industry Accountablilty"), Weinstein was all a flutter about getting his precious initiative going, even with the progress of Cal-OSHA's making their own regulations on mandating condoms and other "barrier protections" for porn performers against their stated will.

So much so, in fact, that he wasn't even willing to wait until the vote next June; he wants the L. A. City Council to use the sigs to enact the proposal NOW. As in, before Chiristmas.

Don't believe me??  Here's a direct quote from the AHF press release (via here):

“Producers of adult films are required by California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193 to use barrier protection, including condoms, to protect employees during the production of adult films,” said Brian Chase, Assistant General Counsel for AIDS Healthcare Foundation. “However, many producers of adult films in Los Angeles consistently violate the worker safety provisions of this Code. In addition, pursuant to Section 12.22(A)(13) of the Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code, producers of all films within the City of Los Angeles, including adult films, are also required to obtain film permits. Such permits issued may contain conditions ‘consistent with public health, safety and general welfare.’ We believe the city already has the authority to tie film permits to condom use—this ballot measure will allow Los Angeles voters to weigh in and make certain this happens.”

 And here's a direct quote from Weinstein himself at the press conference, as captured by AVN's Mark Kernes (full article here):

Perhaps the most important point for the adult industry, aside from the announcement that AHF had apparently collected more than enough signatures to put its mandatory-condom initiative on the ballot in June, was the claim by AHF president Michael Weinstein that if city clerks, doing a random check of petition signatures, find that the initative has qualified for the June ballot, that enacting an ordinance needn't wait for voter approval.


"At that point [after the signatures have been checked], the city council will have 20 days to enact the ordinance as is, or else it will go to the June ballot," Weinstein said. "We're very confident of victory in the election. Certainly, we think it is primarily the responsibility of the city council to enact this measure, and we hope that their consciences will be pricked and they will do the right thing and do that, but we're perfectly prepared to move forward.... We will be making an announcement shortly about actions we're going to take to move the agenda along at the county level as well."

 Of course, Weinstein seems to have forgotten that the second the condom mandate even becomes law, it will be hit with a tsumami of lawsuits challenging its legality...never mind the fact also that I'm guessing that LA doesn't have anywhere close to the funding to effectively enforce such a broad-reaching law. But, then again, all those potential condom dollars from Lifestyles and Durex must still be affecting his brain cells.

To further buttress his case, Weinstein bought out his crewe of sycophants and "several former actors" in the adult industry" (at least, that's what his press statement promised)...which turned out to be two actors. But oh, how interesting they were.


Testimonial #1 was from none other than Derrick Burts, the eye of the 2010 "porn scare", who waxed real good about how easy it was for him to get all kinds of STI's from unprotected sex and how only condoms would have saved him. (From Kernes again)

Burts, who "works alongside the AIDS Healthcare Foundation" and claimed to have been infected with chalymdia, herpes, gonorrhea and HIV after performing in adult movies (straight and gay) for just four months, opined, "I think it's very safe and fair to say that in this industry as a worker, when you're not wearing barrier protections, the likelihood of you getting an STD is extremely high."

Perhaps more interesting was Burts' claim that, "One thing I always point out time and time again, is that testing is not enough because there's too big of a time frame where we can go out and have sex with someone in the general public—you know, a lot of performers, female performers go out and have sex in the general public—male performers as well—and we go back to work on a porn set and we can easily spread that before testing again."

Ahhh, yes...the old "we porn stars are just too slutty to protect ourselves, so we need the State to intervene for our own good and jam condoms down our throats" card. Funny, but having someone who managed to infect himself in a scene WITH A CONDOM INCLUDED, who openly boasted of being an active bisexual swinger, and who even managed to use a negative AIM test to pimp himself for Rentboy.com, is hardly the best person to use to promote sexual restraint. (Also, go here and here to see more of DBurts playing fast and loose with the facts.)

The other former actor to take advantage of AHF's crying towel was Darren James, whom at least has a bit more cred as the centerpiece of the notorious 2004 HIV outbreak that actually did claim 4 female performers (Lara Roxx included).Like Burts, James pitied the fact that his life essentially changed after his HIV infection, and naturally, he blamed not having a condom on during the scene:

"People are going to buy porn regardless," James argued. "The fans that I've seen on the street, they could care less. They just want to see performers. If that means that a guy can't use a condom, you get a better actor that can use a condom... It's gonna sell. Don't believe all the directors talking about—they try to use every kind of scapegoat they can to get out of it, but it all comes down to the same thing: You gotta stick by the condom. The condom is the only way because just testing—that's what I thought: Just getting a test was saving me. And look at me now: I'm HIV-positive. The tests don't mean nothing; it's after the fact."  (excerpted from Kernes)

So, Mr. James...why weren't you willing to stick to your own words when you had that tryst in Brazil before doing that scene?? Or..why didn't the obvious anal sores on Lara Roxx's buttocks raise the red flag that something was more than a bit wrong and that maybe it should have been time to bail out?? Viruses don't invade by themselves, you know..you have to get them and spread them.

And don't even begin to start me on the claim that James and/or Roxx might have been infected before that infamous shoot, due to they shooting in Canada..see this story.

The other spokesperson there was Brian Chase, AHF's chief legal counsel, who riffed on how the condom mandate would be enforced if the initiative was ratified or passed. Apparently, he thinks that FilmLA, the organization that permits movie shoots in Los Angeles, can be induced to enforce the law:

"Everyone knows that when you go the city to get a permit, that permit comes with some conditions," Chase stated. "If a mainstream film studio wants to get a film permit and there's going to be pyrotechnics, then they have to have safety measures; they have to have the fire department involved. When you get a construction permit for your house, that means you've got to follow all the rules regarding workplace safety for construction workers. It's the exact same thing in the adult film industry. We have regulations saying that when workers might be exposed to the threat of disease, they have to be protected with barrier protection. In the context of adult films, that means condoms. This is a law that already exists, but this industry seems to believe that it's above the law, that it can just ignore the law and get away with it. It can't, and we're going to continue to do whatever we can, including going to the voters, to put pressure on this industry to start protecting its workers."

 Yes. but FilmLA does not have a charter to impose rules for condoms on porn shoots, and I don't see LA giving them the money to do so (otherwise, that would be called an "unfunded mandate", which is a no-no politically). But, Chase and Weinstein have an out for that: just let either the LA County Dept. of Public Health or Cal-OSHA take over the enforcement. The former, though, wants out of the condom police biz altogether after being burned far too often, and the latter already has enough powers through fines and raids (and is currently seeking to change the regs to force the mandate via "barrier protection" enforcement".

Just as interesting as who was there, though, was who was absent.

Like, for example, any active current porn performer, even though there are more than a few who do support the idea of more condoms in porn.

Also...no females this time; you'd think that Weinstein would want to avoid the stigma of having men lecture female performers on protecting themselves.

But the biggest absence of this drama?? No Ministeress!!!

Apparently Shelley Lubben has become much too radioactive for even the folks at AHF to recruit her ministry for propaganda's sake, thanks to the allegations that "Madelyne" (the former Michelle Avanti) raised against her and her Pink Cross Foundation. Either that, or Shelley's decided to focus her audience for her book on her fundamentalist Christian roots, and palling around with a liberal gay organization would get in the way. (Not that she's not doing her deeds en rogue, her YouTube page just put out a video of the presser, albeit altered to make it seem as if she was there.)

And if you remember, Clones, Shelley and Pink Cross was all over the original presser in June announcing the initiative; she even had her present protege Jan Meza pose in the background.Whether this is a permanent break or simply part of the strategy of divide and conquer, we shall see.

In any rate, maybe it's time for the industry to get past their differences and pull together and fight this nonsense. It's only your profession, you know.

And around the blogs today....

The big sex work news of the day was, of course, anti-vice New York Governor Elliot Spitzer being caught with his hand in the very same honey-pot he crusaded so publicly to keep a lid on. Of course, Bound, Not Gagged is all over it, and providing some excellent coverage and commentary. Also with spot-on commentary is this post from our own founding henchwoman Renegade Evolution, and this from Susie Bright.

Since this scandal hit the news, the media has been all over contacting high-profile sex workers for their perspective on the sex industry, especially the high-end call-girl/powerful client end of it. There was a very good interview with Audacia Ray on the New York City public radio Brian Lehrer Show. (I also have quite a bit to say in the commentary thread following the audio of the post – shameless self-plug.) However, much of the desired level of conversation by members of the mainstream media hasn't exactly been so high-minded, and in at least a few cases, the interviewers have essentially played the role of cheap johns, wanting simply some salacious statements to sell copy, and barring in advance any discussion of the bigger issues. (Readers of this and other porn and sex work blogs may recognize a pattern at work here when it comes to the relationship between sex workers and the larger media and entertainment industry.) In a rather exemplary display of principle over publicity, Audacia Ray writes that she turned down an interview with MSNBC for this very reason. Audacia, you rock!

On another topic, "Thomas", a guest blogger on Feministe has just posted on the death of Shannon Wilsey, aka Savannah. (No, its not an anniversary of any kind, just a subject he felt like talking about.) On one hand, he's pretty right on the money with his pointing out that a lot of the male celebs who she played around with couldn't be bothered with her when she was in need during her life, nor even bother to show up for her funeral after her death. (Exception: Pauly Shore, of all people – otherwise, a variation on the same pattern of behavior toward sex workers as I was talking about earlier.) The flip side of the piece is a certain moralistic tone the piece takes "These were young women with few prospects. The patriarchy dangled a wad of bills in front of them if they would put on sexual performances for men. Then it treated them like shit when they took it. Sex objects, objects of curiosity, objects of scorn. To which I would add, "objects of pity and condescension for feminists".

First, she was not completely alone toward the end of her life – she was actually pretty close to a number of other porn performers and people in the industry. (Albeit, quite a few others despised her as a prima donna.) The Feministe piece ignores this in favor of the "exploited by the porn industry she hated" angle. Second, for all of the very real demons Shannon Wilsey clearly had, the whole passive victim of The Patriarchy script we see at work here really doesn't do her story any justice. For better or worse, Shannon Wilsey played a very active role in remaking herself into Savannah, first as a celebrity groupie, then as a top porn star. Shannon/Savannah was someone with great sexual charisma, an exceptional "hottie", and like anybody with an exceptional ability or gift, had a lot of her self-image wrapped up in that. In the end, probably too much, but nonetheless, she was who she was, and those who dismiss her as a mere victim of male objectification or empty hedonism and little more do nothing to honor her memory.

Some Antidotes For Bob Herbert's Anti-"Pornstitution" Myopia

For those of you just coming from Feministe and Jill's tribute to Bob Hebert's latest display of myopia and sex shaming, I offer these articles in response for an effective antidote:

Elizabeth Wood of Sex and the Public Square: Note to Bob Hebert: Misogyny is much more complicated!

Let me start with the false assumptions about causality. Herbert seems to be asserting that the existence of pornography and prostitution, as evidenced by legal brothels in Nevada, serve as evidence of the misogyny in American culture that then leads to the epidemic of violence against women. Wrong. Are more wives and girlfriends murdered by their partners in Germany or the Netherlands where prostitution is legal? No. I would say it is our culture of violence that leads to violence of all sorts. (Note: I am not asserting a direct connection between watching violent movies or playing violent video games and committing violent acts. I am suggesting that in a culture where violence and aggression are rewarded, as they are here, that you get more violence and aggression.)

The other problem with Herbert's argument is his assertion that sex work is somehow uniquely problematic. The fact that he uses sex work and pornography as the sine qua non of misogyny tells us that he sees those things as uniquely and irredeemably degrading and dehumanizing to women. One of the bits of evidence Herbert shows us -- again -- from his Nevada trip to support his claim that the brothels there degrade women (and I have no doubt that some are run in degrading ways) is that the women must answer to a bell. Now others have previously pointed out that school kids answer to bells, workers in factories and other locations often answer to devices like bells or buzzers. I bet even Mr. Herbert has a Blackberry or some other device that vibrates or rings in his pocket, and causes a Pavlovlian response where he hastens to comply with some instruction from his employer. Oppressive? Yes. Unique to sex work? Not a chance.

[...]

Herbert also raises the very real -- and too little examined -- problem of sexual violence in the military, but again he misses an important connection. He completed passes over the degradation rituals common to military life. Think drill instructors shouting insults at new recruits as they train. Think chants about blood and killing. Think hazing-type rituals as groups are formed and as their members shuffle in and out.

Think leasing your body to a male-dominated institution for a period of years to be used as the leaders of that institution wish. They can send you to another country. They can separate you from your family. They can command you to kill and send you on missions where your chances of being killed yourself are incredibly high. And you can't refuse without breaking the rules.

Think your only option for escape, if they don't want to let you go, is to commit the crime of desertion.

It is all the more clear now that Herbert opposes prostitution and pornography specifically because they are centered on sexual transactions. But degradation and dehumanization in work are problems that are not unique to the sex industry, and the sex industry ought not be uniquely condemned for them.

And then, there is this collection of essays from our founder and chief Henchwoman, from her own blog:

A Problem Here

Not a Monolith

Classist and Privileged, oh my!

THE DIFFERENCE

The Majority of the entries in the Activism & Outreach Tips for Allies Tag Section there on the sidebar.

And yeah, go on over to Bound, Not Gagged, and take a look.

And, if I find any more, I'll post the links here.

And For An Added Pile-On.....

....I reset an earlier debate involving myself and Nina Hartley to add to the piling on of discussion on Sam Berg and her latest treachery:

The SmackDog Chronicles: Sam Berg: Stalker of Women (Especially Women Who Don't Share Her Sex Fascist Vision)

Ren on Sam Berg

Rather than repost the whole thing- I'll just go with the link.

FOXNews Porn: Right-Wing Hypocrisy Meets Left-Wing Puritanism

There are a great many ways to hate on the FOX News Channel if you happen to be a political progressive like I am.

There's the consistent browbeat of right-wing propaganda thinly cloaked under the brand of "Fair and Balanced News". The revolving door between certain luminaries and commentators of that network and the Bush/Cheney administration-cum-Mafia. Bill O'Reilly. Sean Hannity. Tony Snow. Bill O'Reilly. Bill "Bomb the shit out of Iran and Syria" Kristol. Neal Cavuto. Bill freakin' O'Reilly.

But...for some progressives out there, that alone isn't quite enough....they would like to expose Fixed Noise (to use Keith Olbermann's classic gloss....although for this particular story, Bina Becker's acronym of "FUX Snooze" would be more appropos) for something entirely different.

As a peddler of porn.

What's that, you say??? How can a right-wing media outlet like Faux News be even remotely involved with an industry that most of their base viewers would find beyond the pale???

Easy, says Robert Greenwald, who was the producer of the documentary Outfoxed which was one of the first exposes of FOX News' corrosive impact on the public at large: They use gratituous sexual images and "misogynous and innapropriate" sexual media to attract their audience to their news and information programs.

Greenwald has been a busy man of late pushing his "FOX News peddles indecency while attacking it" meme: he has released film clips over at YouTube (one example of which appears here) depicting how everyone there from BillO to Neal Cavuto to the regular news programs splatter gratituous T&A (and even the occasional blurred XXX image) into their news coverage. He has developed a spoof website (foxnewsporn.com) to promote his efforts; He recently wrote an article for the "progressive" daily Alternet.org promoting his efforts (and claiming that his video clips were "censored" by both YouTube and Digg by not being linkable; kinda not true since I just linked his clip two sentences ago); and he has gotten significant airtime, even to the point of scoring an interview segment on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

Most of his case consists of replaying clips of where some FOX luminary prattles on about the "sexual decline" and "moral decay" of the country...while images of pretty risque and suggestive sexual activity (or merely sexy images) fill the background screen.

For instance, there is BillO moaning and groaning about the infamous Carl Jr's hamburger ad featuring Paris Hilton doing her Jenna Jameson imitation and nearly mounting her car and having multiple orgasms over their hamburgers....while Paris winds and grinds uninterrupted in the background.

Or, in another BillO segment, another attack on "secular progressive San Francisco (read, "homoSEXual") values", as represented by the annual sex freakery known as the Exotic Erotic Ball....complete with detailed coverage and footage of said acts of freakery from a journalist who was there. (Apparantly, BillO skipped last years Folsom Street Fair, so he wasn't able to report on that particular alleged atrocity of "secular progressive" values.)

Or...there is a "breaking" story about an alledged sexual assault over at the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles...a perfect excuse for gratituous T&A shots at Hugh Hefner and his stable of bikini beauties frollicking about nearly nekkid.

Or...how about another "breaking story" scaring the viewers about rapists running amok during Spring Break....featuring strippers and thong-clad dancers flashing their naughty bits (pertinent parts electronically covered, of course).

Or even today, on Cavuto's program: a warning about strip clubs "enticing pre-teens"...complete with some pretty saucy pics of said patrons to entice....errrrrr....scare them.

All this, Greenwald asserts, proves how corrosive FOX News is to the body politic; and they must be stopped by any means possible, up to and including media boycotts.

Now, being a prime Fixed Noise hater myself, I normally would be willing to add my support to anything that piles them on. But I just can't hitch myself on this campaign, for the following reasons.

First: This is nothing new with Rupert Murdoch. He is well versed in the art of using skin and sex to bait the trap to get consumers; how else did he make his millions with his tabloids in Great Britain (see the Page 3 Girls) or with his FOX cable network (Married....With Children, anyone???). And as for BillO....well, we'll just leave him to Andrea Mackris' tell all book (which probably won't appear on FOX News anytime soon).

Second and more importantly: Although it is certainly right and proper to spell out the hypocrisy of Fixed Noise playing both sides of the sex media street (remember, Murdoch paid Judith Regan big bucks to sell Jenna Jameson's tell-all biography two years ago, even as he also paid BillO and other assorted columnists to diss her as an ignorant slut), I'm wondering whether Greenwald's real beef is with FOX News or with the sexy images they appropriate...for he doesn't make too clear that he's really not more offended by the behavior of the images than he is by FNC. There are loads of loaded commentary about "indecency" and "gratituous sex" in his documentaries, and there is a not-so-subtle plea for the viewers to "do something" about the images...as if Fixed Noise's more normal political crimes aren't worthy of censure enough.

And thirdly: most of the "pornographic" images that so grieves Greenwald aren't really that porographic or even softcore: they range from refined Girls Gone Wild video excerpts of young girls carvoting, to women lounging in bikinis, to brief titty flashes and thong-clad booty shaking, to women kissing (the Madonna and Britney Spears liplock at the 2002 American Music Awards is featured as one example of FOX "indecency"); to the occasional interview with porn starlets. One wonders from watching this whether Greenwald is really condemning FOX for being right-wing hypocrites...or for showing such evil "misogynistic" and "objectifying" images in the first place. I tend to think more of the later..which would make him only one step removed from antipornfeminist "leftist" fanatic Nikki Craft, who attacks more hardcore porn with pretty much the same theme (though with Larry Flynt as her primary Great Satan rather than Fixed Noise).
The way I see it, why is it that some liberals and "progressives" are so willing to play the Puritan protectionist card as a means of promting themselves and their pet causes?? The notion of attempting to split your enemy amongst genuine Puritan populist and "libertarian" lines may be one attraction (read that to mean getting the real religious Right folk foaming about the "conservative establishment"); perhaps Greenwald really wants to attract authentic social conservatives to progressive causes as well; and sees attacks on establishment outlets like FOX News and their "indecency" as a bridge to such a right-wing populist constituency.

But this is a dangerous game of tit for tat that not only legitimizes and reenforces the most reactionary sexual beliefs as "progressive"; it also mistakes scapegoating of legitimate consensual and harmless sexual imagery and expression with more effective political analysis and organization.

All this campaign proves to me is that conservatives have no monopoly on using sexual fear and loathing as a wedge to import their particular ideology; and that some progressives and liberals need just as much to check themselves and their antisexual myopia. FOX News is bad enough as a politically obtuse, racist, right-wing media organization as it is; there is no need to pile on at the expense of innocent sexual expression.

[Cross-posted over at The SmackDog Chronicles (BTW, memo to Ren and Belle: Update the SmackChron link in this blogroll..please??? OKThanxbye. :-)]

The New APRF [Maoist] Meme: Buy Porn, Kill a Muslim

I'm sure that you have heard about how the usual right-wing antiporn groups are now targeting the US Military for apparantly defying Congressional laws against porn being sold at military bases.

It got me to thinking, though....how would the antipornradicalfeminists on the "other" side attempt to spin the issue to their advantage??

Well, I need not wonder any longer.....get a load of this pamphlet which equates consuming porn to killing Muslimwomen...courtesy of APRF whackoid Phyllis Chesler the Maoist International Movement:

http://www.imperialismkills.org/fliers/islamofasc2.pdf

I suppose that the many Muslim (and other non-religious folks in Iraq and other Middle East countries) who were victims of "Amerikan" imperalism don't really count for these MIM whackjobs....nor the fact that most of those who finance and support the killing of "Muslims" are as violently and militantly antiporn as they apparantly are.

Oh....and "wimmin" jill off to porn too...will they be held accountable for their role in genocide?? Oh, I forgot...most of those women OPPOSE the war. Too bad....it's the jerking off that is the real issue, I guess.

Just one more standing monument to APRF extremist collusion and ultra-Maoist lunacy, me thinks.

[Tip of the hat to Doug Henwood over at the Left Business Observer mailing list (lbo-talk) from where I got the link to Chesler's MIM's lunacy.]

UPDATE (11/8/o7) I owe a sincere apology to Phyllis Chesler for originally attributing the pamphlet to her; following the links provided at the bottom of the pamphlet let me to the Maoist International Movement site, which featured an attack on Chesler for being not "radical" enough and too "Western" for their particular sectarian tastes. I have made the proper revisions in this post to correct the record.

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.

Why Bob Jensen is a big damn lie -- The "Delusional" edition

Having been one who has crossed swords on more than one occasion with Robert Jensen and his band of "male feminist" guilt trippers, I can attest quite well to his ability to think outside of the box...that is, that box strategically located between his buttcheeks...when it comes to porn and its supposedly abrasive effects on men and women.

Well...I happen to have proof of how so far off he really is when it comes to analyzing porn.

In the essay that Ren fisked so well this last post ago, Jensen refers to 15 porn films that he claimed to study and analyze for their abrasive and injurous content. One of those films happened to be Delusional, a Vivid "feature" produced in 2000 for the "couples" market.

For those who missed it, here's Jensen's brief take on that video, as adapted from that essay:

This is what quality erotic film entertainment for the couples
market looks like“

Delusional,” a Vivid release in 2000, is another of the 15 tapes I viewed.
In its final sex scene, the lead male character (Randy) professes his love for
the female lead (Lindsay). After discovering that her husband had been cheating
on her, Lindsay had been slow to get into another relationship, waiting for the
right man -- a sensitive man -- to come along. It looked as if Randy was the
man. “I’ll always be here for you no matter what,” Randy tells her. “I just want
to look out for you.” Lindsay lets down her defenses, and they embrace.

After about three minutes of kissing and removing their clothes, Lindsay
begins oral sex on Randy while on her knees on the couch, and he then performs
oral sex on her while she lies on the couch. They then have intercourse, with
Lindsay saying, “Fuck me, fuck me, please” and “I have two fingers in my ass --
do you like that?” This leads to the usual progression of positions: She is on
top of him while he sits on the couch, and then he enters her vaginally from
behind before he asks, “Do you want me to fuck you in the ass?” She answers in
the affirmative; “Stick it in my ass,” she says. After two minutes of anal
intercourse, the scene ends with him masturbating and ejaculating on her
breasts.

Which is the most accurate description of what contemporary men in the
United States want sexually, Armageddon or Vivid? The question assumes a
significant difference between the two; the answer is that both express the same
sexual norm. “Blow Bang #4” begins and ends with the assumption that women live
for male pleasure and want men to ejaculate on them. “Delusional” begins with
the idea that women want something more caring in a man, but ends with her
begging for anal penetration and ejaculation. One is cruder, the other slicker.
Both represent a single pornographic mindset, in which male pleasure defines sex
and female pleasure is a derivate of male pleasure. In pornography, women just happen to love exactly what men love to do to them, and what men love to do in pornography is to control and use, which allows the men who watch pornography to control and use as well.

[Final sentence emphasis added by me.]

Now, that certainly sounds like the ultimate in woman-hating, right??

Not. So. Fast.

Enter my friend and colleague Sheldon Ranz, who happens to be a serious porn auteur, serious enough to have been a paid in full reviewer for Adult Video News (AVN) magazine during the 1980s and 1990s, and who was fortunate and seredipitous enough to have interviewed Nina Hartley for a leftist Jewish magazine called Shmate way back in 1989. (He is still friends with Nina to this day; she was the first maid at his wedding.) [Not the other way around; thanks to Sheldon for the correction.]

Anyways....as part of a previous thread over at Nina's forum touching on Robert Jensen's myopia regarding porn, Sheldon decided to take on his own review of Delusional based on his having viewed the film more than a couple of times. Here's the results of his studies, which paints a, shall we say, slightly different tale than that of Mr. Jensen, to say the least:

[Posted by Sheldon Ranz to Nina Hartley's forum originally on 9-22-04;
reprinted tonight by request from moi and posted here with permission]

OK, sorry for the delay. I hope y’all think what follows below was worth
the wait.

Oddly enough, no review of Delusional appears on AVN’s website, so I’ve
compensated by writing my own review in AVN mode, as I did for real from 1990
–1997:


DELUSIONAL(2000). Vivid Film. Director: Robby D. Script: Robby D. &
Tiffany Enright. Starring Cheyenne Silver, with Ryan Conner, Kiri, Dale DaBone,
Joey Ray and Bobby Vitale. 69 Min.

Titled for the three delusions running rampant in this feature, the film
opens with office colleagues Cheyenne and Dale bemoaning their nowhere social
lives. Dale offhandedly wonders if he’s gay since he hasn’t dated in six months
and urges Cheyenne not to give up on men after she caught her husband (Joey Ray)
boffing a hooker (Kiri) in their own home. Now living alone, Cheyenne has a
on-line chat partner named “Alex” who strikes her as her dream man – kind,
gentle and loyal. After one nightly chat, she tabs over to her Enter button and
her joy bell rings. Later, she has a nightmare involving her getting laid by her
now ex-husband in some noisy dive.

The next day, she meets “Alex”, who turns out not to be a man (Delusion #1)
but a babe with a flamboyantly blonde hairdo, Ryan Conner. Both taken aback and
curious, and wishing to avoid her nightmare scenario, Cheyenne gives Sapphic sex
a shot. After auditing Ryan’s initiating cooz course, her lips smooch and smack
before saving Ryan’s privates for last. Cheyenne wakes up the next morning
alone, Ryan having left her a note with a flower. Later, she tells Ryan at a
restaurant that she’s uncomfortable having a relationship with a woman because
of what others might say. Ryan yells at her, but abruptly smiles and lures her
into the back for a torrid threesome with Bobby Vitale. Cheyenne conspicuously
keeps her high heels on, as if to say, “I want to be bad!” Ryan yells at Bobby
for spurting on them (which she spurred him on to do) and Cheyenne is put off by
Ryan’s increasingly hostile possessiveness.

Having said that he’s been saving himself for her, Dale finally gets his
chance to be with Cheyenne when she takes him home with her. Wearing earrings
and modest tattoos, he looks like a pirate out of a Harlequin Romance novel.
Their foreplay is sweet, despite Cheyenne’s dreadful acting here and throughout
this feature. After a brief but intense exchange of oral sex, she says, “I want
to feel you inside me” and intercourse ensues (as they say on "Law and Order:
SVU"). Equal time is given to missionary and cowgirl, with Cheyenne fingering
her pooper chute throughout. Finally getting the hint, he asks, “Do you want me
to stick it in your ass?” Relieved, she replies, “Yes, I want you to stick it in
my ass!” Shakespeare would be proud.

Watching this from outside, Ryan is fed up. Armed with a liquor bottle and
a gun, she storms in, claiming Cheyenne as her lover (Delusion #2) and
threatening to ventilate Dale. Cheyenne knocks her out with the bottle, but she
escapes while the couple call the cops. Cut to “6 Months Later…”, when someone
knocks on Cheyenne and Dale’s door, leaving behind Ryan’s telltale flower. [The
feature then fades out with 'scary' music.]

Delusion #3 is our heroine’s pop-culture cluelessness. As Michael Douglas
learned in "Fatal Attraction", any assertive blonde named Alex with a fancy
hairdo is asylum bait. I guess Cheyenne didn’t see that movie, since she came
Glenn Close to buying the farm. The feature includes outtakes and bloopers.
Market to those who like their sex scenes safe, short and to the point; and away
from those offended by the blatant homophobia of lesbian psycho
characters.

************************************************** ******************

Comparing the actual contents of the film with Robert Jensen’s own
commentary, what do we find?

Jensen Delusion #1: as a self-proclaimed politically aware gay man, why
does he NEVER mention the "lesbian Fatal Attraction" subplot? This would be an
easy way to bash a mainstream, couples-oriented porn studio.

Jensen Delusion #2: it used to be that women would talk about "saving
themselves" for the right man - now it is a male protagonist (Dale Dabone) who
talks that way. Why does Jensen not see this reversal of stereotypes and how it
undercuts his notion of the man "using and controlling" women?

Jensen Delusion #3: Dale is comfortable enough with his masculinity that he
has no problem speculating in front of Cheyenne that he might be gay - also
overlooked by Jensen.

Jensen Delusion #4: the, ahem, climactic sex scene between Cheyenee and
Dale is totally directed by Cheyenne. Basically, he's a puppy who does whatever
she tells him to do. Not only is she NOT begging, but he's just grateful to be a
satellite orbiting her sun. Who's "using" and "controlling" here? And, as I said
previously, asking permission is contrary to the assumption of entitlement
underlying Jensen's notions of "control" and "using".

Jensen Delusion #5: since Jensen bashes "Delusional" precisely where it is
progressive, and ignores it, in part, where it is reactionary, you have to
wonder what sort of journalism he is passing on to his students. Is this what is
meant by, "Those who can't...teach"?

Now...the first reader here that is willing to skim through Robert Jensen's archives and find ONE essay on the original Fatal Attraction movie -- you know, the one where Glenn Close melts down and almost whacks Michael Douglas, perfect prep for his balling Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct, I'd say) -- gets a free pack of Oreo cookies and a gallon of milk for dunking. Would Jensen say that Douglas' character in FA was doing the dominating as much as he preposes that the guys in Delusional were??? Or, perhaps it's only in his mind that since real women don't ever ask for anal sex or ask for spooge in the face, those who do in porn are only either "degrading themselves" for the assumed male audience (must mean gay males, I guess, since by his rules, women are too pure to watch such contemptuous sex) or are mere slaves of the evol trenchcoat-bearing dungeon masters who trap them in such scenes.

You will also notice that Delusional is actually one of the darker "couples" films out there...a bit categorically different from the more conventional style of couples features which usually feature vanilla couples engaging in happy, joyous, mutually pleasurable sex for fun....without the head games and mindfucks. Perhaps it's dark themes were what probably attracted Jensen to review it in lieu of other videos out there??

But then again, it's not like Bob Jensen to extrapolate his own myopia about what men expect from sex and what he thinks women expect from men who view porn onto others....and call it "radical feminism", riiiiiiiight???

Delusional, indeed.

Yes, and what about that?

Trinity brings up an interesting question here, and Amber asks the same question, repeatedly, here and elsewhere...and its a valid thing...

Why is it when things go amok, if someone whose caused trouble or pain in the life of someone else has porn, suddenly, it's the porns fault? Not the person who committed whatever act, but the porn? And why is it so often all other things that might be amiss are ignored in favor of the porn?

I remember while reading Pamela Paul's "Pornified" that all these other men she profiled had Other Issues going on in their lives, yet what was wrong with them was the porn. The porn was the problem: not the drinking, not the depression, not the drugs, the work stress, the relationship issues...but ah yes, the porn...

I noted in the information that Adam sent about crime rates in areas with porn shops (stats from 1989...) that nothing else was considered there either: not economic depression, not unemployment, not drugs or gang activity...but the porn shop.

When peoples relationships go bad, if the person is a porn user, it's the porn: not that s/he might be violent to start with, or callous, or the couple might be sexually incompatible, or that there are Other Issues there too, every sort of stress that leads people to divorce court, but no, it has to be the porn...

I mean yes, morality in the world today, it's easy, even attractive, to blame the immoral porn...but is it accurate? Can it really, always, be blamed neatly, quickly, and utterly on the porn?

I think not...not if you're going to be honest about it, or interested in what's really going on...