Seeing the way discussion has degenerated and the ill-will that has formed over the last several days around "Lolitagate" is the kind of stuff that makes me want to throw in the towel and stop blogging altogether. It really underlines the limitations of online communication and the minefield you step into when you start discussing your own sexual likes and dislikes, especially in a milieu devoted to sexual politics.
First, I've really got to give at another apology to Caroline, especially, and also Tom, though he hasn't responded, for what might have seemed like a personal attack. It was never meant that way. I'm doubly apologetic that my post apparently brought ignorant trolls to your blog. (And if anybody who went over to Caroline's blog and called her something along the lines of a "lazy, superficial, careless, frigid bitch" is reading this – Fuck Off!)
Also, it seems like there's some factional shit among the polys and sex-pozzes going on here that I wasn't aware of – apologies for stepping into the middle of that, too.
At the same time, a lot of the anger directed at me is based on such a gross misinterpretation of what I said and to whom I was speaking, I hardly know where to start.
First, the irony here is both Caroline and I feel that neither has even bothered to read what the other has said before responding, and hence there's a lot of general pissed-offness over gross misinterpretation of what was actually said. For my part, I was critiquing the anti-"barely legal" porn arguments of several people, but somehow, it was interpreted as a focused attack on Caroline. I also used a bad choice of words, calling their arguments "radfemmish", though I probably should have had the good sense to know that in the sex-poz blogosphere, those are fighting words. This unfortunately was very quickly turned into "you called Caroline a radfem", which I did not do and is pretty illustrative of the kind of rhetoric inflation that takes place in blog arguments.
If I was focused on any one post, it was actually the initial post by Tom (who's writing I also generally like, BTW), which had kind of a finger wagging and moral absolutist tone that I found distasteful, and its pretty clear from the comments, I'm not the only one.
I was critical of Caroline's argument insofar as she was shoring up Tom's position, but I think her posts on the topic were actually rather peripheral to my argument. However, I also pointed to them as "characteristically thoughtful and reflective", which seems to have been lost on most readers. Still, I perhaps didn't read Caroline closely enough to note that this was a personal statement about why this kind of thing squicks her out based on her life history and experiences, and its now being interpreted that I'm telling Caroline and others that they have no right to feel the way she does, or that I'm blasting them for not taking a YayPorn all-the-time party-line.
This is where the discussion really becomes unproductive, because I'm hearing a lot of rhetoric to the effect that me, and other commentators who have been critical of Tom, Caroline, and others on this are guilty of trying to "silence" them. But this argument goes nowhere, because I can certainly point to the level of invective against me just for daring to state an opinion as definitely silencing. But, obviously, an endless round of arguing just who is trying to silence whom actually accomplishes nothing. Either discuss something of substance or agree to disagree and move on.
The other thing that really stands out is that when you start writing about your own reactions to images of real people, what a minefield that opens up, and I think that minefield can become a veritable Korean DMZ when start throwing things like feminism or pornography into it. I think its very easy to read into images, or people's reaction to images, "you're ugly", "the people you're attracted to are ugly", "she's prettier than you", "you should be turned on by this, and not by that" (and, boy, does discussion of "feminist porn" often come across that way), and, of course, "you're a pervert", which is where I think a lot people are see some insinuation of in this discussion. Which I think actually gets back to Caroline's point about how you respond to an image being very tied up in your history, experiences, and sense of self.
Case in point – a post by Soulhuntre on some controversial images of fat women that were being discussed around the feminist blogosphere. (And, yeah, there are a lot issues between Soulhuntre and a whole lot of people, but I'll put that aside for the moment.) Soulhuntre reacted to the controversy with a kind of "um, so does this mean I'm supposed to pretend to like fat chicks" followed by some other less than kind remarks, while Belledame, quite understandably, took his comments as a swipe at her appearance. And the thing is, I don't see either of them as wrong in their subjective reaction to the image, or how the image was being spoken of. But I do see Soulhuntre as being an ass in the way he wrote about the images – a lot of women look like this and a lot of people are attracted to them, and trashing them as self-evidently ugly was really insulting. At the same time, I really find it bothersome when I see some feminist discourse insinuates that this is the kind of women that people must be attracted to, less they be guilty of fat-phobia and "looksism".
In my case, when I look at the Luna and Mina images, I'm reminded of a couple girlfriends I had back in my 20s. (Actually some pretty key relationships, in fact.) Not in exact appearance, but having the same skinny build and being quite young-looking for their age, yep, definitely. And you know what, I'm not going to apologize one little bit for finding them beautiful and sexy then, or thinking, some 15 or so years later, that young women with a similar appearance are beautiful. And I'm certainly not going to hypocritically jump on board with some party line about just how fucking horrible it is that anybody would be turned on by somebody like that. On the other hand, I can understand where some women are coming from, who look at that image and see what was probably going through the head of every creepy guy who ever leered at them in high school.
This is where I get really impatient with the accusation that you can't criticize porn, which is kind of a cheap accusation and not where I'm coming from. I do, however, think that when you discuss porn or any other kind of imagery, you're really not just discussing porn, you're discussing things like sexual fantasies, appearance, self-image and so on. I think it goes back to why a lot of us consider ourselves to be "pro-porn", there's a hell of a lot more to the issue than just pornography, or even freedom of expression. As much as radfems might want to write it off with the line "porn is not sex", the fact is, its very much an expression of underlying sexuality, stuff that would still be there even if porn didn't exist.
I don't think there's any way of discussing it without stepping on people's toes, really, and I'm not saying that people shouldn't have these discussions. On the other hand, to defend oneself with "I have a right to my subjective opinion of that image" (which is totally valid, in itself), and then get really upset that somebody else might have a subjective reaction that doesn't agree with yours – that's a contradiction, to put it mildly.
A sanctuary for supporters of sexual free expression and the adult sexual media.
Showing posts with label strife. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strife. Show all posts
Monday, August 11, 2008
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Barely Legal Blogwars
It looks like there's kind of a small blogwar brewing in the sex-poz blogosphere around the issue of "barely legal" porn. This started when Viviane of Viviane's Sex Carnival posted one of the Sugasm feeds from Sugarbank, which was headed by a featured photo of "Mima and Luna", two very young-looking models from the glamour-porn site Errotica Archives. (I wanted to see if Sam Sugar had anything to say about this, but Sugarbank seems to have completely gone down all of a sudden – hopefully its not permanent.)
This was very upsetting to sex-poz blogger Tom Paine (who apparently has other differences with Viviane) of Polymorophously Perverse who's "protective father instinct" kicked in and called Viviane on the carpet for posting "pseudo-kiddie porn", which led to all manner of disagreement from the commentariat there, though Caroline, of Polymorophously Perverse and Un-Cool, offered Tom some support and expressed her discomfort with the image in a couple characteristically thoughtful and reflective posts on the topic.
The interesting thing, though, is that hardly anybody thinks the 2257 disclaimer on the site is inaccurate, and people who have problems with the pictures are upset over the models adolescent appearance, which apparently some people feel is dangerous because it undermines the idea that teenagers can't give meaningful consent or "sexualizes" teenage girls. In other words, you have some sex-pozzessounding uncharacteristically radfemmish advancing a sort of "social harm" argument, about porn expressing a dangerous idea which might influence viewers in the wrong way; the kind of argument that, in a different context, most of these people would probably argue against.
My own stance on this (which I'm sure I'll be torn a new one for) is that just because somebody who's a legal adult looks a few years shy of an arbitrary age limit doesn't suddenly make the images anything remotely close to kiddie porn. Second, I don't have a whole hell of a lot of sympathy with the idea that porn like this represents such a dangerous idea that it ought not be produced. That's not to say actual under-18 teenagers should be doing porn, of course, but I'm not against porn that expresses the idea of sexy teenagers, either by use of young looking models, or through drawings or animation (such as hentai manga or anime). I can see where images like this might piss people off, especially given the current moral panic over the "sexualization" of teenagers, particularly teenage girls, but I don't think its an idea so heinous that it should be driven out of the marketplace of ideas (though to be fair, I don't think anybody has so far argued that the state should step in an censor such images).
And when people get so upset about a particular model, my first instinct is to try and find out who the models in question actually are. Its the dark-haired model, Mima, in the photoset that people seem to be most upset about. She's somebody I thought I'd recognized, and sure enough, its none other than the (usually-blonde) Miriama K, an already young-looking model who's ungodly-large doe eyes make her look way younger than her actual age. According to her Myspace page (which I'm assuming is genuine), among other sources, Miriama is a 21 year-old professional model from Bratislava, Slovakia. She's been active since late 2006, which would have made her about 19 when she started modeling. She's actually been all over Central European web porn circuit over the last couple years, doing both softcore and hardcore, and from some of the photos on her Myspace page, it looks like she models for non-porn stock photography as well. Could she pass for 14-17? Definitely. Is she anywhere close to that age? No.
I could find less about the other model, Luna, who typically goes by Judita A or Lea T, but I've seen photos like the one in question where she looks young, and others where she looks well into her 20s. (Amazing, what differences in appearance a few differences in lighting and camera angles will bring about.) I'm guessing, if anything, she's around the same age as Miriama or a few years older.
And as an aside, I see a lot of stuff come up in the feminist and sex-poz blogosphere about young-looking girls, but nobody seems to notice there's an entirely parallel genre in gay porn. Do a Google image search for "twinks" and you'll see what I mean. It could have to do with the fact that gay porn is hugely off of a lot of people's radar, to the point where most discussion of porn, even among sex-positives, seems to mention it only as an afterthought. But I also think that young-looking guys being sexual just don't get people quite so upset as sexy images of young-looking girls, and to my mind, that speaks to the fact that a lot of this concern might be coming from an all-too-traditional "lock up your daughters" mentality.
Addendum: Anastasia from "Sex, Life, and Frilly Bits" weighed in with a thoughtful post on "Youthful Erotica & The End of the Civilisation?". Nothing to add except, "what she said".
Further addendum: It appears that Caroline, a blogger who I have a great deal of respect for, is now feeling singled-out, maligned, and mischaracterized by some of the statements I've made above, and is really quite upset about the whole thing. Her arguments about her discomfort with the images acknowledge that a lot of this is gut-level revulsion on her part, and she does acknowledge a certain degree of contradictory feelings on the subject, given her other writing on "extreme porn". For my part, I didn't do the most perfect job of summarizing the argument taking place. (Actually, I challenge anybody to try summing up the nuances of an argument between multiple parties in one or two paragraphs and do a good job of it.) If you're interested in this issue and want to know who's arguing what, I strongly recommend following the links I've given to Caroline, Tom, and Anastasia's posts (and their respective comments) for a clearer picture of what arguments are being made and by whom.
This was very upsetting to sex-poz blogger Tom Paine (who apparently has other differences with Viviane) of Polymorophously Perverse who's "protective father instinct" kicked in and called Viviane on the carpet for posting "pseudo-kiddie porn", which led to all manner of disagreement from the commentariat there, though Caroline, of Polymorophously Perverse and Un-Cool, offered Tom some support and expressed her discomfort with the image in a couple characteristically thoughtful and reflective posts on the topic.
The interesting thing, though, is that hardly anybody thinks the 2257 disclaimer on the site is inaccurate, and people who have problems with the pictures are upset over the models adolescent appearance, which apparently some people feel is dangerous because it undermines the idea that teenagers can't give meaningful consent or "sexualizes" teenage girls. In other words, you have some sex-pozzes
My own stance on this (which I'm sure I'll be torn a new one for) is that just because somebody who's a legal adult looks a few years shy of an arbitrary age limit doesn't suddenly make the images anything remotely close to kiddie porn. Second, I don't have a whole hell of a lot of sympathy with the idea that porn like this represents such a dangerous idea that it ought not be produced. That's not to say actual under-18 teenagers should be doing porn, of course, but I'm not against porn that expresses the idea of sexy teenagers, either by use of young looking models, or through drawings or animation (such as hentai manga or anime). I can see where images like this might piss people off, especially given the current moral panic over the "sexualization" of teenagers, particularly teenage girls, but I don't think its an idea so heinous that it should be driven out of the marketplace of ideas (though to be fair, I don't think anybody has so far argued that the state should step in an censor such images).
And when people get so upset about a particular model, my first instinct is to try and find out who the models in question actually are. Its the dark-haired model, Mima, in the photoset that people seem to be most upset about. She's somebody I thought I'd recognized, and sure enough, its none other than the (usually-blonde) Miriama K, an already young-looking model who's ungodly-large doe eyes make her look way younger than her actual age. According to her Myspace page (which I'm assuming is genuine), among other sources, Miriama is a 21 year-old professional model from Bratislava, Slovakia. She's been active since late 2006, which would have made her about 19 when she started modeling. She's actually been all over Central European web porn circuit over the last couple years, doing both softcore and hardcore, and from some of the photos on her Myspace page, it looks like she models for non-porn stock photography as well. Could she pass for 14-17? Definitely. Is she anywhere close to that age? No.
I could find less about the other model, Luna, who typically goes by Judita A or Lea T, but I've seen photos like the one in question where she looks young, and others where she looks well into her 20s. (Amazing, what differences in appearance a few differences in lighting and camera angles will bring about.) I'm guessing, if anything, she's around the same age as Miriama or a few years older.
And as an aside, I see a lot of stuff come up in the feminist and sex-poz blogosphere about young-looking girls, but nobody seems to notice there's an entirely parallel genre in gay porn. Do a Google image search for "twinks" and you'll see what I mean. It could have to do with the fact that gay porn is hugely off of a lot of people's radar, to the point where most discussion of porn, even among sex-positives, seems to mention it only as an afterthought. But I also think that young-looking guys being sexual just don't get people quite so upset as sexy images of young-looking girls, and to my mind, that speaks to the fact that a lot of this concern might be coming from an all-too-traditional "lock up your daughters" mentality.
Addendum: Anastasia from "Sex, Life, and Frilly Bits" weighed in with a thoughtful post on "Youthful Erotica & The End of the Civilisation?". Nothing to add except, "what she said".
Further addendum: It appears that Caroline, a blogger who I have a great deal of respect for, is now feeling singled-out, maligned, and mischaracterized by some of the statements I've made above, and is really quite upset about the whole thing. Her arguments about her discomfort with the images acknowledge that a lot of this is gut-level revulsion on her part, and she does acknowledge a certain degree of contradictory feelings on the subject, given her other writing on "extreme porn". For my part, I didn't do the most perfect job of summarizing the argument taking place. (Actually, I challenge anybody to try summing up the nuances of an argument between multiple parties in one or two paragraphs and do a good job of it.) If you're interested in this issue and want to know who's arguing what, I strongly recommend following the links I've given to Caroline, Tom, and Anastasia's posts (and their respective comments) for a clearer picture of what arguments are being made and by whom.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
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)
The SmackDog Chronicles: Sam Berg: Stalker of Women (Especially Women Who Don't Share Her Sex Fascist Vision)
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Oh, those wonderful radfems....
Good lord, it appears those of us in the "pro-porn posse" aren't allowed to maintain our own blog or express our own opinions, at least, not according to certain radical feminists. Apparently, this is an offense punishable by a real-life "outing" of one of the bloggers here.
More here:
Well, OK, so the mere act of maintaining this blog isn't a high crime against radfemdom, but we're pushing our luck and the threat is there. Great Goddess on a pogo stick, could these people be any more fucked up?
I've got to say, of the two segments of the anti-porn movement, religious right or radical feminist, its hard to figure out who's worse. On one hand, the religious right is by far a bigger threat politically (in the US, anyway), and of course, that goes way beyond porn. On the other hand, this kind of creepy stalking behavior, internet harassment, and personal threats seem to be the specialty of radical feminists. I have yet to see some godbag pull this kind of shit.
More here:
stormy // Jul 17th 2007 at 4:21 pm
[....]
Oh, and if it is a certain narcissistic sex worker primarily behind this site, again slagging off radfems… ‘embarrassment among peers’ can be but a click away - did she not learn anything last time about constantly attacking radfems?
If ‘they’ (stupidly) want to promote ‘pro-porn activism’ (an oxymoron if ever I heard one) then that actually isn’t the same as ’slagging off radfems fest #5,327′. [....]
Well, OK, so the mere act of maintaining this blog isn't a high crime against radfemdom, but we're pushing our luck and the threat is there. Great Goddess on a pogo stick, could these people be any more fucked up?
I've got to say, of the two segments of the anti-porn movement, religious right or radical feminist, its hard to figure out who's worse. On one hand, the religious right is by far a bigger threat politically (in the US, anyway), and of course, that goes way beyond porn. On the other hand, this kind of creepy stalking behavior, internet harassment, and personal threats seem to be the specialty of radical feminists. I have yet to see some godbag pull this kind of shit.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
....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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)