"Make Love, Not Porn???" Yeah, Right!! (Now At The Lady C Boudoir Blog)

There has been a lot of talk around the Internet of late about a site called Make Love, Not Porn that seeks to reveal to the masses the "truth" behind what passes for "porn sex" and how it supposedly differs from what is "real sex".

Well...others have throughly dissected their mythology with relish, and so, I decided to take a crack at it.

Because of the nature of the material, though, I decided to dust off my more...adult Lady Chatterley Boudoir blog from the 2 year ashes as a venue for my fisking. Read and enjoy.

The Lady Chatterley Boudoir: "Make Love, Not Porn??? Really??? How About Making Love AND Porn Together??

The other Melissa Farley

When googling "Melissa Farley" before, I'd noticed that the top hit, and the domain name MelissaFarley.com, is for a Philadelphia photographer of the same name as everybody's favorite San Francisco anti-vice crusader. I'd never looked at the other Farley's photos until now, and I must say, I'm pleasantly surprised by how unlike in spirit the photos by the other Farley are from her namesake.


I'm reminded a bit of the doppelganger-naming of Jeff Stryker, one having been a top gay porn star and the other once-Director of the National Commission on AIDS. Except, I those two I don't see as polar opposites. I could almost picture a panel on safer sex featuring the two of them. The two Farley's, on the other hand, seem worlds apart. (Which, in the case of photographer Farley, is defintiely a good thing.)

As a fan of erotic art and of photography in general (and a sometimes-photographer, myself), I'm definitely impressed by the other Farley's work. Its an aesthetic I sometimes wish more porn would match. (Then again, as somebody who actually likes looking at sex acts in all their glory, I also understand the functional necessity of high-key lighting.)

TPoP Returns to L.A.

Yes, after the previous fiasco reported here, the TPoP gang wants to take another shot at inflicting their bullshit on the one place where the numbers and the expertise exist to call them out for it. In fact, L.A. is the place where those victimized and exploited by this mendacious piece of agitprop just happen to live. As before, unless the showing is closed to all but invited attendees, as I suspect it might be this time, we'll be back for another face off with those who think that the best way to combat the evils of porn is to misuse the likenesses, actions and words of those involved in making it to forward the producers' hate-driven agenda.

Here are the details of TPoP's next showing in Los Angeles:

Los Angeles, CA
02.26.09, Thursday
7 pm
University of Southern California
Women's Student Assembly
kristen.priddy@gmail.com
626.487.4171

Women and men from the porn industry will be there to speak for themselves, as they did previouslly. This time, without all the dancing around about the date and location, I hope to see more faces that appear in the film in the audience to confront those who have deceived and defamed them in the creation of this monstrosity.

Should we all be barred from the screening, well I guess we'll just have to stand outside with placards in our hands and tape over our mouths while the local TV news cameras make a permenant record of the proceedings.

Each time they bring their spool of cinematic offal here, they demonstrate their utter contempt for all of us who make our livings in porn.

The least we can do is return the compliment. Rest assured, we will not fail to do so.

Yet Another Super Bowl Porn Malfunction

[crossposted from the SmackChron, mostly for Ren, who is a certified Football Femme]

Oh, this is too bad for the NFL….just when they think they’ve finally shaken Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction”, here comes Tuscon, Arizona to pour in a fresh glass of SNAFU.

For those of you not in Tuscon who may have missed it: the Comcast cable feed for the NBC affiliate there broadcasting Super Bowl XLIII got a bit interrupted for about a minute….

….right after after Cardinal wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald made that epic speed blast up the middle of the Steeler defense for what was at that time the go-ahead touchdown for Arizona. (Right before Santonio Holmes and the Steeler offense responded with their “right-back-at-’ya” drive to break Cardinal hearts and sew up their sixth Lombardi Trophy. )

Unfortunately, that’s not what viewers of Tuscon’s Comcast cable broadcast will be talking about..at least, not now they aren’t.

No…because the wild celebration (if premature) of Fitzgerald’s run was interrupted — some would say even marred — by none other than the sight of….a naked penis.

Evan Stone’s naked penis, to be exact.

‘Ya see, Clones: While most of America was having their teeth rattled at the closeness of the game, the Shorteez cable network (associated with the Club Jenna website….nice going, Jenna….even when retired you deliver one hell of an impact!!!) was airing a compilation porn flick titled Wild Cherries 3 18 ‘n’ Up Wet Poons (or maybe it was Wild Cherries #4...see Update #2 below); hey, not everyone’s into American football, you know.

Well, apparently, someone running the board over at Comcast got so excited at the sight of Fitzgerald’s run that he must have pulled a switch or something….because the Tuscon cable audience was thusly treated to a highly involved and entertaining blowjob scene featuring Mr. Stone’s prodigious dick….live, uncut, and totally uncensored. (No word on who the lucky lady doing the blowing was, but I’ll do my best to find out. Actualy, they mostly only caught the tail end of the BJ, and a bit of the aftermath when Evan swaggers his unit around while it’s still out of his pants.

The response was the usual variety: Outrage from the usual fundamentalist quarters about children being exposed to erect penises; remorse from the Tuscon NBC affiliate and from Comcast along with assurances of investigations to get to the heart of the matter; and bemusement from most others about how puritanical America still seems to be. Some of the lucky few to be so entertained tried to spread the wealth by posting the clip to YouTube…but it was later pulled due to that site’s stated policies against adult material.

Fortunately, an enterprising viewer in Tuscon was able to tape the faux-pas from his DVR to a camcorder, then cut his own clip of the incident to not only post to his own blog, but also to create his own website to sell the clip for cash. I’m sure that the legal department of Club Jenna and the producers of that video will be very happy about that.

Even more fortunate than that for the rest of us, good old Fleshbot.com got themselves a copy of the clip, and in their usual worthy and sterling public service, is showing the clip at their site.

I’m only awaiting for the Republicans in Congress to hold a press conference any time now about the evil spread of porn on TV and how Comcast did it on purpose because they are funded by the “pornographers”….

Only remorse I have about this: They could have at least given us some naked ladies rather than just Evan’s tool to drool over. Memo to Shorteez/Club Jenna: try some MILF porn next year.

Update: XFANZ.com just put up Evan Stone’s personal reaction to all the controversy (mostly, bemused amusement) and gives us some updated info on what may have caused the snafu:

A knee injury ended Evan Stone’s football career, but he got to appear in the Super Bowl last night. Part of him, anyway.

Late in last night’s telecast of the NFL championship, viewers in Tucson, Ariz., got a 30-second surprise when the game cut away to a scene from a Club Jenna production featuring Stone. The interruption came soon after receiver Larry Fitzgerald scored touchdown that put the underdog Arizona Cardinals ahead.

Stone learned the news from XFANZ, and after getting over his disbelief, he burst into laughter.

“That’s incredible,” he said, adding that he thought he had reached the peak of his media saturation when his face appeared on an episode of South Park.

“The people who appear on South Park, they usually destroy them,” he said. “When I saw myself on that show, I figured, ‘I’m vindicated. This is all I need.’ But this, wow.”

The clip appeared on Tucson-based KVOA-TV but, according to preliminary reports, cable provider Comcast is to blame for the snafu.

“The feed originated with NBC local affiliate KVOA in Tucson and traveled via a fiber optic line to the Cox Cable Company, which then relayed the feed through a separate line to Comcast,” said tech analyst Ian Paul. “Both KVOA and Cox say the problem lies with Comcast, as the KVOA feed was porn-free when it left the station, and Cox did not receive any complaints from its customers.”

Naturally, Stone doesn’t want Comcast to take all the credit.

“Oh, it was all a master plan,” he said. “I had been planning this for years. It serves them right for not letting me play in the game.”

Apparently, Stone might have had a shot at the big leagues, once upon a time. He said he played football at Western Michigan University until a knee injury ended his career at age 18.

But it all worked out for Stone in the end, even if it didn’t for the Arizona Cardinals. Soon after Fitzgerald’s score (and Stone’s cameo), Pittsburgh rallied to score another touchdown in the waning moments to capture the Lombardi Trophy.

I’ve embedded the scene below, but if you want to see the uncensored edition, please visit our good friends at the mighty Fleshbot!

The scene was reportedly from Club Jenna’s 18 ‘n’ Up Wet Poons.

Thanks to XFANZ for the update….still want to know who the lucky lady was on the giving end of that hummer, though.

Update #2: Hmmmm….Violet Blue at her Tiny Nibbles blog just posted that the lady in question is actually Tory Lane, and that the original vid from whence it came was in fact Wild Cherries 4. Considering how porn scenes are repackaged over and over again, though; it’s highly possible that it may have appeared under both titles. Whatever.

Tame That Toon

The sweeping U.K. ban on "extreme porn" is so vaguely worded it could be applied to almost anything that some official might not like for almost any reason. Therefore opposition to it continues to grow in many quarters. Latest to join the fray are comic book artists, not usually amenable to organized political action, this monster legislation poses enough of a threat to get them away from their drawing tables and speak up:

Comic Book Fans Protest UK 'Extreme Porn' Law

By Edward Duncan
LONDON - Goodbye, Batman and Punisher? Britain's new extreme porn laws could even lead to the banning of comic books, opponents said.

Comic book collectors, fans and stores in the UK have voiced discontent regarding two laws: The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, which takes effect in February, and the Coroners and Justice Bill, currently in Parliament.

According to the Telegraph, protesters claim the legislation could make owning mainstream comics illegal in Britain.

The law defines "extreme pornography" as any "extreme image" produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal, which could even apply to pin-up-like comic book splash panels of big-breasted glamazon super-heroines battling evildoers.

The British government defines an "extreme image" as anything "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise obscene." Critics have said what is deemed offensive, disgusting or obscene is much too vague.

"Isn't that how Batman, Punisher, Judge Dredd get anything done? A kick in the balls would constitute this, and a kick in the balls is a well-trodden part of humor," Britain's Comic Shop Voice organization said in a statement to the press.

Comic Shop Voice expressed concern that some Japanese-style "manga" comics, featuring young-looking characters, could also be banned under the new laws.

"Because this is a minefield for the law, it then falls on the police to enforce it," the organization said. "And it is their judgment that could lead to a prosecution."

U.K. Extreme Porn Law in Effect - Sort Of

From our friends at AVN:

Report: UK Police Won't Actively Pursue 'Extreme Porn' Law

Watching violent porn does not lead to violence, opponents argue.

LONDON - Despite a newly enacted UK law cracking down on extreme porn, British police say they will not seek out owners of violent pornography unless there is "due cause".
Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 was passed following British mother Liz Longhurst's three-year campaign to curb violent sex videos. Longhurst's schoolteacher daughter Jane was murdered by Graham Coutts, a man who collected extreme porn.

The law criminalizes the possession of pornographic material that depicts necrophilia, bestiality, or life-threatening or body-injuring violence. Offenders face a maximum sentence of three years in jail.

According to British news sources, the Ministry of Justice has predicted few national prosecutions and placed responsibility for enforcing the law on local police departments.

"The police will not be actively targeting members of the public but will be conducting investigations into the unlawful possession of this material where found," Britain's Association of Chief Police Officers said in a statement to the press.

A 2007 British government review of research concluded extreme pornography can be linked to violence and pro-rape attitudes among the men who view it excessively. But opponents argue that the legislation will lead only to "harmless criminals and victimless crimes."

"People who abuse may look at extreme images, but looking at the pictures doesn't make you like that," said Clair Lewis, a spokesperson for the Consenting Adult Action Network.

Lewis called Coutts' murder of Longhurst "abysmal," but added that blaming violent actions on viewing pictures from the Internet is just a murderer's or rapist's "excuse."

"If this law had been in place a few years ago, it wouldn't have saved Jane," she said. "We're fighting a really emotive battle here, but there is no evidence that this law will work."

Likewise, the British free speech and human rights group Backlash sees the law as well-meaning but misguided.

"The law is infantilizing women and sets men up as rapists and this does nothing for gender relations," said spokesperson Alex Dymock. "Some fairly innocent images are going to be liable for prosecution with this law and I don't believe it will save any lives."

From reading this, it would seem that this noxious piece of legislative pandering is more symbol than substance, but I wouldn't count on it. Bad law, once on the books, has a history of abuse. Sooner or later, somebody will end up getting busted over possession of pictures.

And at the very least, the proponents of this nonsense will be crowing about their great victory over "the pimp lobby" and will be thus encouraged to pursue the infliction of their agenda through legislative means elsewhere.

It's never reassureing when cops say: "Don't worry about this silly law. We won't really enforce it anyway."

Yeah, right.

Some Good News for a Change -COPA is History

This is it folks. A major piece of legislative bullshit dating back to the Clinton era dies at the hands of a conservative Supreme Court. Who would have thought it?

Here are the details:

WASHINGTON — A federal law intended to restrict children's access to Internet pornography died quietly Wednesday at the Supreme Court, more than 10 years after Congress overwhelmingly approved it.

The Child Online Protection Act would have barred Web sites from making harmful content available to minors over the Internet. The law had been embroiled in challenges to its constitutionality since it passed in 1998 and never took effect.

The Internet blocking law did not make it as far as a high court hearing. The justices rejected the government's final attempt to revive the law, turning away the appeal without comment.

The American Civil Liberties Union led the challenge to the law on behalf of writers, artists and health educators. "For over a decade the government has been trying to thwart freedom of speech on the Internet, and for years the courts have been finding the attempts unconstitutional," said Chris Hansen, the ACLU's lead attorney on the case. "It is not the role of the government to decide what people can see and do on the Internet. Those are personal decisions that should be made by individuals and their families."

A federal appeals court in Philadelphia earlier ruled that the law would violate the First Amendment, saying filtering technologies and other parental control tools are a less restrictive way to protect children from inappropriate content online.

The act was passed the year after the Supreme Court ruled that another law intended to protect children from explicit material online - the Communications Decency Act - was unconstitutional.

The Bush administration had fought hard to have the law take effect.

In 2006, the Justice Department subpoenaed internal files from dozens of Internet service providers and other technology firms, including AT&T Inc., Comcast Corp., Cox Communications Inc., EarthLink Inc., Symantec Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc. as part of its defense of the law.

But senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. ruled in 2007 that software filters work much better than the law would. Reed also said the law failed to address threats that have emerged since it was written - including online predators on social-networking sites - because it targets only commercial Web publishers.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia upheld Reed's ruling.

Critics also said that pornographers and others could simply base their operations offshore, beyond the reach of U.S. authorities.

In an earlier test of the law, the Supreme Court in 2004 upheld an order blocking its enforcement on the grounds that the law probably was unconstitutional. The five justices who made that ruling remain on the court.

Still, it was unusual for the court to kill a major federal law that had an administration's backing, without a hearing.

The case is Mukasey v. ACLU. 08-565.

So, one less bogus attempt to regulate speech in the name of "protecting the children" runs head-first into The Constitution and gets flattened.

Let's hope it's a real precedent and not an anomaly.

sex workers- once again, what's best for us:

As you may or not may be aware, under the auspices of a woman named Jacqui Smith, the UK is considering a law that will criminalize the purchase of sexual services, namely, men who participate in, as they call it in the UK, “kerb crawling” (street based work). As usual, the evidence Smith is basing her proposal off of is questionable, but the proposed law is there none the less.

A blogger and ally Caroline, who is in the UK, has written extensively about the downsides of this law, and what very real consequences and potential consequences it has on sex workers of all kinds within the UK, she was even given quest posts at the UK based the F-Word and a US blog, Feministe!

The responses to her posts were, how shall I say, typical, and the reaction to her stance on the matter, equally so. Both Caroline and sex workers who bothered to participate were bogged down by generally radical leaning feminists with countless issues not necessarily germane to the legal issue at hand, shouted down as “unthinking”, “idiots”, or “happy hookers”…

I have to ask, to those of you who have met me and what not, do I generally come across as Teeheeeheee I can by Prada woo-hoo happy? Do most sex workers? Umm, no. Yet this is, consistently, how any who disagree with the pervading theme of repression of sex workers are written off and thusly discounted.

But as usual, those of us who oppose Swedish-like models, even considering the troublesome evidence that has shown such models to be far from perfect and the words of actual sex workers, as is typical, we are a tiny minority who truly know nothing about our business and do not care about all the poor trafficked women and girls. Which is bullshit, and I note, these people so concerned, from feminist anti sex work people to world governments, find it far more easy to criminalize the people who buy sex and attempt to play (often unwanted) savior to the people who sell it than to actually go after criminal organizations that deal in trafficking or take on the underlying causes, such as lack of education, poverty, drug abused, and lack of other job opportunities that face people who are unwillingly involved in prostitution…but apparently that is too hard and too messy…it’s easier to play Capitan save a ho.

I’ve also noted, in this particular latest round and in countless others, the apparent need of these people to demonize any and all sex worker outreach/activist programs which do not tout a 100% exit / prohibition stance. Currently, the English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP) and International Union of Sexworkers (IUSW) are under attack by supporters of the proposed UK law. The same sorts of tactics have been used against SWOP, COYOTE, the Scarlet Alliance, and countless other Sex Worker Organizations in the past.

And while all the smoke and mud about happy hookers and how sex worker orgs don’t really care about sex workers and what about the poor trafficked women and girls (no mention of the transwomen, men and boys, for that matter) rages on one simple thing remains fact: a law which will affect countless sex workers adversely is poised to go on the books in the UK, with, best as I can tell, no input from any sex workers and no real ear to the objections of any sex workers…So once again, we have people building law and political prestige on our backs.

Now, I am not in the UK, nor are most of you, but that doesn’t mean this should not matter to us. Sex Workers in the UK are sex workers, just like us, and just as the UK looked to Sweden for inspiration, there is no guarantee where ever you are might not look to the UK for the same thing…

So yes, if you find this as annoying and patronizing and seriously ill advised as I do?

Say something, because if we don’t, nobody else will.

I’ve already said a few things…

And why yes, please feel free to redistribute at will...

And Let's Not Forget the Wonderfully Progressive Regime in China

Update: Chinese government to Web companies: No porn allowed

[CNet] In what amounts to a thinly veiled legal threat, the Chinese government has intensified its campaign against sexually explicit material online by instructing companies, including Google, to curb the availability of pornography.

Monday's announcement from a collection of seven government agencies singles out 19 sites as unlawfully providing access to "vulgar content." On the list: Google's Web search and image search, Baidu.net and the company's blogging site, and Sohu.net. (Google has denied any wrongdoing.)

The announcement from the State Council Information Office is billed as a "nationwide anti-crime" initiative, and urges the public to report illicit posts and Web sites. The state-controlled China Daily said that the companies named on the list "have been found to spread pornography and threaten youth's morals." It also warns that a regulatory crackdown may be coming.

While politically themed Internet censorship in China has received most of the attention--news sites and human rights sites are frequently restricted--the country's ruling Communist Party has long been interested in stamping out smut too. A CNET News article from as far back as 1996 said that Chinese Internet users were asked to "sign a set of rules that makes it illegal for users to produce or receive pornography."

More recently, the public security ministry said in 2007 that it would target porn, online strip shows, and even erotic stories. Some of the electronic barriers came down during the Olympics last year, only to reappear in the last few weeks.

Along the way, Chinese officials have made some bizarre statements. At an international Internet summit in Athens, a government representative told an incredulous audience: "I've heard people say that the BBC is not available in China or that it's blocked. I'm sure I don't know why people say this kind of thing. We do not have restrictions at all." (That statement would come as a surprise to Falun Gong practitioners.)

If this were simply political speech, no doubt members of the U.S. Congress would be tempted to convene ritual hearings where China, Google, and various other companies could be ceremoniously denounced in front of the cameras. But because we're talking about porn, a Senate resolution applauding China's censorial policies is probably more likely.

Gee, maybe they'll call this "The Chinese Model." Has a nice ring to it.

Holland's Banks Join the Euro Anti-Porn Front

As predicted, in the general SDP{/Labouriet panic over the evils of all aspects of the sex biz, The Netherland, long known for its laid back attitude toward sex work, is using economic means to try and strangle it. If anyone thinks this can't happen here, I have some news - it already has. The banks in Holland have admitted they are closing down all accounts for adult buisenesses - the usual nonsense about trafficking and oranized crime of course - but banks here did this quietly to a lot of Web operators over he past six years.

Yet another example of the glories of the Swedish model, econmic version, in operation. We don't make porn and other sex work illegal. Oh no, we just make it impossible for consumers to pay for it. At least over there some organized resistance exists to combat this kind of backdoor censorship, but how effective it will be is hard to say.

If it isn't, look for some sleeper anti-porners in our wonderful new presidential administration to try more of these shenanigans on this side of the Atlantic.

National Association of Dutch Sex Companies says banks no longer want to do business with them


--radionetherlands.com

In a letter to Minister of Justice Hirsch Ballin, [pictured] the National Association of Dutch Sex Companies says banks no longer want to do business with them. The letter says the banks intend to close existing accounts and refuse to open new ones. The banks involved are ABN AMRO, Fortis, ING, SNS and the Rabobank. Only the Postbank has refused to join the boycott.

The association says the banks are taking the action because they no longer want to be associated with firms that may be involved in money laundering and human trafficking. However, the association points out that the boycott also applies to companies that fully abide by the law.

The association says it does not object to companies or individuals that break the law being refused by the banks, but wants the government to ensure that bona fide firms are not subject to the boycott. It adds that if all firms are forced to open an account via a third party, this will make the activities of the sex industry less transparent, and points out that this is something the government has been working hard in recent years to avoid.

The association is a national organisation for brothels, swingers' clubs, massage parlours, erotic cafes, escort companies and SM studios.