Response To An Antiporn Whackjob (Or…Why You Should Actually Learn To Write English Before You Attempt To Smack Down Someone)

Part of the hazards of being pro-porn (or at least anti-antiporn) is that you tend to get some interesting emails from the other side.

Most of them are of the usual harmless pontification saying how wrong I or any defender of porn is, how I misunderstand the message and the “truth” about antiporn.

A few get somewhat personal, accusing me of abetting any type of evil sexual freakery, if not being a sexual freak myself. Those usually go to the infamous File 86 or spam file, since none of them are bright enough or know me enough to lecture me on my personal sexual habits. (Which remains, of course, my business and none of theirs.)

Fortunately, though, other than a few blasts from some Brit radfems (hello, Witchy Woo!!!) that have attempted to go nuclear but fizzled, I never had to face the kind of stupidity and lameness.

Unfortunately, some dear friends of mine aren’t so fortunate. One such friend, former porn/erotica performer Lydia Lee (the former Julie Meadows) endured such stupidity, that she had to post about it at her blog yesterday.  And, it’s such a whopper that I had to offer reinforcement.

As most of you well know, Lydia/Julie has been mounting a truth campaign for the past year of so against the rantings and ravings of antiporn Christian fundamentalist activist Shelley Lubben; using her blog and a forthcoming documentary she co-produced with Michael Whiteacre (The Devil And Shelley Lubben) to expose the many contradictions, hypocrisies, and outright lies spewed forth by the Ministeress in her campaign to raze the adult sexual media “industry” (aka “pornography”) from the face of the earth.

Most of the reaction has been positive from most folks….but from those who actually believe in the actions of Ministeress Lubben, it’s a quite different story.

One of Shelley’s disciples decided to attempt to “correct” Lydia personally on her slamming of his mentor via an email…and while the personal assault on Ms. Lee speaks volumes about their attitudes towards those who don’t buy their story, it’s the overall attitude they have towards free thought that really stands out enough.

Lydia has pretty much dispatched this fool quite well at her blog, but I feel that it deserves a special touch.

Note that this email looks and sounds like the person using it is either using English as a second language, or perhaps is using Google Translate as a crutch. It may be a bit hard to decypher what he is saying due to mixed syntax….but I won’t let that get in the way.

To the beginning:

“Lisa and her blog that you may write, because I don’t think she’s capable enogh to do write what is published, specially against Shelley Lubben, is the classical point of view that’s trying to say that, for example, people who worked in that so called “industry” and resulted die, was nothing to do with porn, as if porn, prostitution, drug sonsumption and other things aren’t related. Maybe Mrs. Lubben didn’t contract herpes or any other STD “in the set”, but more of the people who perform porn do prostitutes her/himselfs before, during and after being part of that “bussiness”.

I’m assuming here that “Lisa” is either his/her misspelling of “Lydia”, or a reference to another blogger, and that the blog he is referring to is the response to Lubben’s “Porn Death” list of performers whom have passed away…with the not-so-thinly veiled implication that their consumption of porn or their profession was THE main factor contributing to their deaths. Of course, the fact that many other performers pass away from causes completely unrelated to their work; and so many other performers actually manage to live normal lives and get out unscathed, means totally NOTHING to our emailer. Maybe he and Lubben believe that Savannah, Colleen Applegate (the former Shauna Grant), John Holmes and all the others DESERVED to die because of their choice to do porn?? What about Anna Malle, who died in an auto accident?? I guess that God wanted her to be punished for doing porn, too?? But, if that was the case, then why did (S)He allow Nina Hartley to remain in porn for 37 damn years without so much of a major disease?? (And no, Ministeress Lubben, catching chlamydia four times isn’t enough.)

And this shit about porn performers “prostituting themselves” is so stupid. One more time, idiots: In actual prostitution, the ‘ho PAYS someone the ‘ho is paid by someone to have direct physical sex with THAT PERSON (or people).. In porn, the performer is paid to have sex with ANOTHER PERFORMER who is also getting paid to fuck, while the original payee WATCHES on, gets turned on,  and, hopefully, gets him/herself off through masturbation. (Or, if more than one is watching and they are so encouraged, they engage in direct sex themselves….for free.). The person buying the porn does not actually engage in sex with the performers (mutual masturbation excluded, of course), which makes it fundamentally different from actually paying someone to fuck you. Both are considered different types of sex work, but there is a difference between the two.

[Addedum by Anthony: A slight edit of the preceding paragraph had to be done thanks to Lydia noticing a slight error of judgment on my part. 'Ho's don't actually pay their clients; the clients pay them. My bad.]

Oh, and for the last Goddess damn time today: Sex workers DO NOT SELL THEIR BODIES. They offer sexual services to people willing to pay for them. They still own the body parts they use after they are used.

Also…it’s so nice that you judge “Lisa” to be unqualified to post on the subject because her opinion differs from yours…errrrrrrrr, because she doesn’t have the creds that Lubben apparently has from actually being a performer. I mean, doing all of 17 videos within a span of nine months and not having done a vid in 17 years sure qualifies her to be an expert, right?? Or…maybe it’s just the Bible that gives her the authority to hate on others who disagrees with her??

Finally…dewd, I understand that you might not be proficient in the English language, but at least attempt to mix in a spell checker. “Business”.  “Himselves”. “Consumption”.”ON the set”. “Especially”. Goodness.

Besides, I don’t think that showing a video when there are exposed film, music and books industry people is an example that Mrs. Lubben is wrong, specially because those people may consumed porn or may had sex with a prostitute, things that are related to your “work”. I think that people deserves to be informed about porn “industry” and what it makes to brain´s people.

Now, this is in reference to a couple of YouTube videos made by some of Lydia Lee’s cohorts debunking the myth of porn star deaths being attributed solely to their use of porn by citing mainstream celebrities whom have passed away due to issues with drugs or accidents or otherwise. Our emailer dismisses them all, in effect saying that how do we know that they didn’t do porn or prostitution, and THAT contributed to their deaths?? I mean, who’s to say that that plane crash that killed Richie Havens, The Big Bopper, and the others was caused by the pilot reading copies of Playboy while steering the plane?? Or, that Rock Hudson’s ultimate demise due to complications from HIV-AIDS was due to his screwing every gay male porn performer in LA?? Or…that Janis Joplin was in fact a street hooker who got her fatal overdose of heroin while diving into Georgina Spelvin’s muff?? Of course, having sex with a prostitute or watching porn regularly does NOT necessarily result in someone getting OD’d or drunk or getting access to drugs…but why let the dog wag the tale here?? It’s all about fingering porn (and by extension sex beyond “God’s limits” of procreation and marriage) for all kinds of social and moral evils.

And as for what porn “makes brain’s people”….I’m sure that our emailer will not hesitate to quote Judith Reisman’s studies about how porn releases “erotoxins” in the brain that are even more addictive than crack cocaine, and that explains why we all go nutzoid at the sight of an exposed nipple or vulva or a male erect penis. Well that, and the natural “mental illness”.

Which leads me to the third and final paragraph of our emailer, which gets to the heart of things:

Finally, I dare you to consult a real source: DSM-IV R, a book that classified mental desease, and take a look over sexual disorders. I’m sure that you and your “people” could be classified in more that one of these mental illness, and this is a scientific book (good source of information) that that those kinds of behavior ARE illness, MENTAL illness.”

Ah, yes…when all else fails and you are getting your ass kicked intellectually and you just can’t defend your case against actual real life empirical evidence, always deem your opponent as mentally ill. Because, only mentally ill people could even suggest that people have free will and are perfectly capable of having their own experiences and not being browbeaten into guilt trips for engaging in the “wrong” kind of sex. Because, only those who suffer from “mental illness” are the ones who suggest that maybe porn actually serves a legitimate purpose in enabling and abetting human sexual fantasy. And, of course, because only “ex-sluts” and “ex-porn stars” now “redeemed” by “the Lord” like Shelley Lubben are accredited to speak “the truth” about the evil of porn, and all those with different experiences are simply either paid liars and propagandists or mentally ill or unwashed in need of Ministress Lubbens special “salvation”.

Riiiiiiight.

So…does that mean that people like Ted Haggard, Kirk Franklin, David Vitter, Larry Craig, and other well-known Christians who have fallen off the sexual wagon of late will be as villified for their failure to hold to their morals and principles?? You know, those same principles that they would impose by law, by force, and even by punishment of death or physical maiming on other, less powerful folk??

And also, riddle me this, emailer: How is it that those whom you claim to be the most stellar representatives of Christian moral salvation seem to retain the most corrosive and mostly un-Christian-like viewpoints?? Would Jesus be running around protecting priests who abuse children?? Would the Son of God have that much disrespect for people of other faiths that he would call for their deaths or departures?? And why are people engaging in consensual, mutually enjoyable sex among each other the ultimate sin and depravity, but people killing and dismembering and raping others for the right to seize their land and property considered a bit less of an obscenity??

The second you answer those questions, Emailer Whackjob, I may accept your right to lecture a woman like Lydia Lee on her choice of profession. Until then, fool, I will treat you like any other TeaKluxxer wingnut idiot who thinks that he owns the world just because he quotes selected Scriptures that reinforce his bigotry,

In my view, Lydia Lee is mentally fine as she is. You, on the other hand, may want to read up your own list of illnesses….specifically, the MORAL illnesses. That, and more lessons on proper English syntax.

Share

The Ultimate Reading Of Shelley Lubben (By Lydia Lee/Julie Meadows) Or: Why This Isn't Just About Us "Smearing" Her

Some people in the last week or so have begun to wonder why there is such a fuss about Shelley Lubben, and why some of us are so fixated on her.

It’s not as if she’s the first former porn performer to be highly critical of the industry, or that her fundamentalist Christian approach to sexuality isn’t propogated on a regular basis.

And more than one person has even said that the campaign to expose her illogic is now crossing the line to basically “smearing” her for just speaking out.

To those objections, I give you this lengthy essay that was originally posted by one of the principled Lubben critics, Lydia Lee (aka Julie Meadows) in June of last year. At that time, Lydia/Julie was a regular contributor to porn producer/agent Mike South’s blog, and as a former performer herself, had garnered interest in Lubben’s Pink Cross ministry and her approach in converting former performers and attacking the industry. The resulting essay should cast no doubt on why exposing Ministeress Lubben’s lunacy is at the utmost importance.

This was also reprinted to my SmackDog Chronicles blog as a page titled “The Ultimate Shelley Lubben Reading/Smackdown” as a special page.

A full cacophony of Lydia’s posts on Shelley Lubben can be found here.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

By juliemeadows
June 24th, 2010

In a way, I’m glad “Devil Lady” attacked my friend Monica Foster’s mental health and challenged her to a debate. I’ve written about her before here, in a post called Questions for Shelley Lubben about The Pink Cross, because like anyone who is not anti-porn, I had an immediate list of inquiries as to the personal integrity of someone who used to be in the sex industry of their own volition, and then turns around to attack it.

The challenge to debate Monica, and then the verbal attacks to me and the condescending tone with which Shelley directs all her commentary towards people who are not anti-porn caused me to look more deeply at this “savior” of porn stars, and I can see very clearly what her game is. And it is a game. I did not know, until my digging, that she and her minions had sent menacing emails to popular porn stars to get saved from porn – and even to get saved on MTV. Menacing emails meant to intimidate and manipulate, and it is not for the purpose of saving porn stars. If you look at her financial records, more goes towards travel than to helping porn stars. She’s a plagiarist on her own site because she stole a story from AVN without crediting them for the information, and without an autopsy report, does credit porn with the death of Ami Jordan, someone who had not done much in the industry at all and had not even worked recently doing any scenes just before her death. Accusing agents and pornographers of illegally positioning themselves as “doctors” while she poses as an authority on information without all the information hardly warms my heart towards her motives. Does Shelley Lubben own the rights to the pictures she uses in her Dead Porn Stars Memorial video? And if not, does she at least own the licensing rights to use those pictures?

Before I get into her story, in her own words, I have to go back to the simplicity of her game plan. First of all, she attacks porn because porn is not illegal. There’s no reason to kick prostitutes when they’re down because they’re already down. Secondly, she needs to save a popular porn star so she can ride on the coattails of the woman’s already established fame. All of this points to a political career, which angers me because religion and politics should never mix. She especially targets strong independent women, like my friend Monica, because it angers her that an intelligent woman would stand in her way. She’s fixated with Monica’s sites www.GettingIntoPorn.com and www.GettingOutOfPorn.com because Monica offers free and practical solutions for entering and exiting the business of adult movie-making. It defies her “God Saves” position because it proves that a person can actually save his or herself from anything, logically, practically, simply, just by using their own common sense.

I just watched a five part video series, Shelley Lubben speaks truth about porn industry, about ex-prostitute Shelley Lubben, and she explains herself perfectly, in her own words. I couldn’t have done it better, myself.

Shelley is on a stage, and she explains (to an entirely male audience, I guess, because she only addresses the men ever), how she grew up and came to be a married Christian woman. She explains that her father was distant and that her mother preached at her a lot and judged her, and was not a very Christ-like woman. I’m guessing that she was an only child because she never mentioned having brothers or sisters. She said that her favorite time of the week was Sunday and going to Sunday School because Jesus “talked to her all the time.” Okay.

At the age of nine she was molested by a boy and his sister. She started masturbating after that and started having sex with other people at the age of sixteen. She said that her mother let her dress up as a Playboy bunny and took pictures of her when she was fifteen, “to keep the peace.” She says she was a real handful. Very rebellious and absolutely set on “getting the attention she wanted.” Her dad kicked her out right after she graduated High School. She said that he warned her he was going to before he did and she shrugged him off. So she was on the street, crying, and a man came up to sit with her and she thought, “My Jesus has come to rescue me.” It’s creepy and it’s heartbreaking, because this woman/child is on the stage explaining why she is the way she is, and she still doesn’t really understand any of it. I feel incredible sympathy for her if those things really happened to her, and I have no reason to believe they did not, but as she clearly spells out exactly why, what and how, she attributes all of her subconscious decisions to “The Devil” and “God” and “Jesus”, all of her conversations with her conscience as conversations with “The Devil” and “God” and “Jesus”, and never once portrays herself as a whole person, even as she claims to now be a whole person. But honestly, most of my sympathy goes to her husband, because instead of just giving him all the credit for meeting her and loving her and marrying her and sticking by her even when she “smacked him around,” “spit on him” and “cheated on him,” all the credit during her entire speech goes to “The Devil” and “God” and “Jesus”. She says as she’s listening to him talk one day, her thought is, “Is this God?” Um… no? It’s a man? Oh, I don’t know. A man in front of you that you should be talking about for at least half of the entire hour of your life story? Garrett, her husband, and the man who saved her from being a single-mom/prostitute only got some mention, and when she told him to stand up so she could “honor” him, after telling everyone that when he asked her to marry him, she said, “I don’t love you, I’m not attracted to you, but I’ll do it [marry him],” and “You went to college, you can make the money,” the camera couldn’t even see him. It careened all over the place. The angle centered on her, from backstage, and there was room for no one else. Shouldn’t he have gotten a moment on stage, maybe? Maybe he didn’t want it, but she didn’t have very nice things to say about him, even though he was the actual reason her life got better. And also because she made her life better. That’s probably the worst part of the brainwashing process to me, that the level of self-loathing is so deep, even when one starts to feel better about themselves, they still can’t attribute their happiness to their own efforts. “By the grace of God!” What’s wrong with, “By the grace of my ability to listen to myself and my presence of mind and love myself and love for myself and not through someone else.” And, “By the grace of a real live human being who helped me… named Garrett.” Too many words? She still won’t give herself any credit, and even though she deserves to give herself credit, she continues to describe an entire life led by other forces and other people, where she never took the reigns and steered any of it on her own, right down to making a website.

So, she was crying and a man came to talk to her, and she wondered if it was “Her Jesus come to rescue her,” in a little girl’s voice, and it was someone offering her thirty-five dollars to have sex with someone else, his treat for his friend, I guess. She said her first thought was, “No. I’m not a prostitute,” but then “The Devil” came to her and said, “God doesn’t care about you, your parents don’t care about you.” End result, she took the money. Then she says she became a “con artist” after that, her own words. “I became a master manipulator, a practiced liar, a con artist conning men out of thousands and thousands of dollars.” (As she says this to a room full of men whose support she wants. Do you think she did her speech for free? Who payed for her travel?) Ahem. Anyway…

Now, this is where it really gets weird on another level. She says that she hated men, but then she says that “all women in the sex industry hate men.” Okay, she attributes all her misfortune to “The Devil”, and all her fortune to “God” and “Jesus” (with a teeny smidgen set aside for the man she also severely emasculates in front of hundreds of people, her husband), then proposes to know the minds of “all women in the sex industry.” Her two faces change back and forth constantly through the entire performance. She’s controlled by other forces, yet she knows the minds of all sex industry workers. It’s not physically possible for her to know the minds of “all women in the sex industry,” because it’s not physically possible for her to be all women in the sex industry. I would have to be you to know what you think, and it’s not physically possible for me to be you. Not possible. She doesn’t explain how she knows this. She doesn’t say she met every woman in the sex industry and asked them if they hated men. How can she not attribute her own happiness and healing completely to herself and her husband, but then attribute knowing all women of the sex industry to her own faculties without explaining how she knows that? I was in the sex industry and I never hated men. She’s appealing to the emotions of this all-male crowd to feel loathing and pity for sex workers because sex workers hate them, and then at the end of her performance she gushes about how much she loves all the men she’s talking to. She is incorrect in her statement because I don’t hate men, and if I don’t hate men, “all sex workers” don’t hate men. You can’t say “all” and exclude one sex worker, past or present. She can’t speak for me because it is physically impossible for her to be me, and therefore impossible for her to know me and my mind without asking me. Her statement is a lie. She conveniently relinquishes responsibility for her own mind in one sentence, and then poses as all-knowing for others minds in the next. There is a very clear disorder in all of this.

She got pregnant three times as a prostitute, lost two in miscarriages and gave birth to and kept her third. That seemed a triumphant ending even if she doesn’t know who the father is, because she could have aborted the baby or given it away, but she kept it. Unfortunately, she also said that she was an alcoholic, a drug addict, that she had stalkers, and that she gave her daughter a beeper to go to the park while her tricks showed up, and then she would beep her daughter when they left. So, you had “stalkers”, but you sent your daughter to the park, by herself? Then she says that she continued to talk to “God” and she’d say, “Where are you? Why aren’t you saving me?” Definitely the mentality of a little girl, and it pains me that her parents didn’t try to raise her, the way she didn’t try to raise her own daughter, at that point. There’s no mental balance in letting your children run wild on their own to learn from other children and predators. No inner voice handed down, a conscience to say, “No, don’t do that,” or “Don’t trust that person,” with a sound and solid explanation behind it. That is very sad.

She says, “I never met a woman in the industry who loves what they do. We’re all liars, we’re all very good actresses.” I like that she uses the editorial “we” in this statement because so much of the things she thinks she’s skewing against porn stars points to the truth about herself. “We’re all liars.” And, of course, in all of this we know she’s saying “I”. Yet again, she projects herself on every female as being her even though she does not steer her own life. In her mind, her conscience is an outside voice, but other women’s minds are her own. It’s all very mentally disturbed and cult-like. In fact, it’s a kind of mental fragmentation. A split in the personality. It’s not possible for every women in the industry to be her. Nina Hartley would absolutely disagree with this woman. I know. I talked to her on Sunday and that woman loves her job. Loves her job. There was no camera on her. She meant it. Who would know but her? Again, Shelley can’t be incapable of owning all her mental faculties and owning someone else’s. Not possible.

So, she said that she talked to God but, “there was no answer.” So, by her count we’re supposed to believe that “Jesus talked to [her] all the time” as a child, but for her darker periods as an adult, God wouldn’t “answer” her. It doesn’t seem like a very kind God to not say something when you are talking to… it. Him. Then someone suggested she do a porn movie because she knew prostitutes that were “raped and beaten”, and she “didn’t want to be raped or go to jail”, so she showed up to do a scene. She says there was a dark presence in the room and she “knew porn was worse than prostitution.” I don’t know any sex worker, personally, who would say that being a legal sex worker is worse than being an illegal sex worker. The only way this makes sense is that her political and evangelical position is to attack the legal side with all means necessary. It’s not possible for porn to be worse than being a completely unprotected sex worker. She doesn’t explain exactly how it’s worse, of course. Then she said that once the camera started rolling, all of her anger towards every man that ever hurt her, and a father that never loved her, came out and she was a wild woman. “Roxy!” And then she says, “Anointed by The Devil, himself.” What a split. She admits that she took out her man-hating frustrations in front of the camera, explains why she turned into a wild woman, and at the same time hands responsibility to yet, another man, albeit an invisible one. Very extreme. But then, she also says later that she was diagnosed as bipolar, as well as other things. All in her own words.

Then she states that, “On porn sets you can hear women crying and throwing up.” This is an absolute statement and she is addressing it to the audience to say, if you are ever on a porn set, you can hear that. But who heard that, really? And on whose sets? Could she have really been privy to every porn set? It’s not physically possible. She is, yet again, manipulating their emotions through an illogical statement. What she’s really saying is that she heard that, and it’s vague enough to imply she heard that on all porn sets. She’s saying it in the present, except that she can’t know because she’s not on porn sets anymore. Hasn’t been for over fifteen years. I never in six years of working regularly on porn sets ever heard women either crying or throwing up. Not even on the not-so-great gonzo sets I worked on in the beginning, were there ever any women crying or throwing up. If that was her experience at that time, she should specify that that was her experience at that time. Neither Jane Hamilton nor Nina Hartley ever said that making porn was anything other than fun, years before “Roxy” was making movies. Could that period of time really have been that dotted with crying, vomiting women when no other era had a constant population of crying and vomiting women?

“Enema boxes and rags in the corner, which is what we’re staring at as every man takes his turn.” She’s speaking in the present again, and “as every man takes his turn?” “Every man taking his turn” implies a gang bang, and by Mike’s post Shelley Lubben Now Whoring Jesus, I can see that she did, in fact, do gang bang scenes. At least one. Personally, I didn’t perform in gang bang scenes, so again she is including me in the editorial “we” which makes her statement a lie. And still, you have to say, “Yes, I’ll do that,” or it doesn’t happen. It doesn’t sound like “waiting for God to save you” is a very good idea at all. Why not save yourself at that point? According to her, she’s a zombie to the forces of good and evil and a mind reader. And since she knows what happens on all porn sets today and every day since she got out of the industry, even while living in Washington with no contact with people from the industry, she also has teleportation powers. A clairvoyant, teleporting zombie. Psychiatrists have names for conditions like that. And what, you never used “enemas” or “rags” as a prostitute? How did you clean your ass out and wash up after?

She did crystal meth and drank before her scenes. I never took one drop of liquor before a scene, never smoked one joint, popped pills or did anything other than eat food and drink water before a scene. There are lots of women like me. I know that because I know them. I’m not saying “all”, because I know I’m not clairvoyant and I do not teleport or claim to be all-knowing while also claiming to not own my mind entirely. To quote Bill Maher, “…anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don’t. How can I be so sure? Because I don’t know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not.”

She talks about how sex is pain for her. The acts were painful and so she would “bite down on an invisible bullet and take the pain.” There’s already an invisible cast in this performance, might as well throw in an invisible bullet, too. Again she pleaded, “God get me out of this!” And God said, “Dummy, get yourself out of it!” and God waited, but there was no answer… I made that part up. Then she says, “In the industry we don’t use condoms.” To her audience, the way she’s speaking, she’s still in the industry because she’s speaking in the present… again… and she is implying that condoms aren’t even in the vicinity of any porn set, not when she was in, and not now, even though she’s not in the industry right now… nor has been for over fifteen years. I did condom-only scenes for years. I can show you the movies and point to the condoms! Where was she a porn star? Europe? She should be clear that she was not a porn star here in L.A. “In the industry we don’t use condoms.” Liar. Then she says, “Every single day we live in fear of catching a sexually transmitted disease or even worse, HIV.” And then she very blatantly contradicts herself. She says she got into porn, and then she says she left porn quietly and got back into prostitution because she contracted herpes. We are to assume she contracted herpes as a porn star, even though she adds that she went to “swinger parties” and “did coke” and had “whipping parties”. So in all of this, she was only in porn for a year and feared for her life every day, except that if you only did thirty movies in a one-year period, that hardly justifies being afraid of contracting a sexually transmitted disease or HIV every day, unless you’re having unprotected sex every day. And how does she know she didn’t contract herpes at one of the parties? She practiced her right to use condoms at coke parties, but not on set? But here’s where she changes it.

So… so far, chronologically, she got into porn and only returned to prostitution because she contracted herpes. She lived in fear every day of catching a sexually transmitted disease or HIV because “the industry doesn’t use condoms.” Later she says, “What we do is when we’re porn stars, we’re also prostitutes.” Okay! So she could have contracted herpes as a prostitute? Yes, because then she says, “We fly around the country and sleep with people for lots of money, ‘cuz they’re our fans. So then we have unprotected sex with them, of course.” Of course? I don’t know one high-paid escort/porn star who has unprotected sex with their clients!! This irresponsible woman did not insist on condoms, admits that she did coke and drank before scenes, contracted herpes and then says she infected a married couple with herpes, then adds, “Did that stop me?” as in, ‘No. It didn’t.’ And then horror of horrors, “I helped contribute to America’s epidemic of herpes.” … Um… Wow. She admits to unprotected sex with clients while she performed in sex movies and then immediately says, “So I believe the adult film industry is a huge contributing factor to sexually transmitted disease in America.” Right! Evidently, you are the huge contributor, in your own words! And if you’re sleeping with clients without protection, you can’t say “the adult film industry” gave you herpes, because you don’t know, the way you don’t know who the father of your firstborn daughter is. Honey, you are contributing to more epidemics than that! You gave your daughter a beeper so you could turn tricks, you had unprotected sex with people knowing you had herpes and now instead of trying to teach these young women in the industry that they should be intelligent and own their minds so they don’t end up like you, you just propose that the industry should go away? Just disappear? Like your “God” disappeared? As irresponsible as she admits to being, these women are supposed to be okay with being saved by her? A robot? Do I have that right? “We” should all relinquish our minds and our sense of repsonsibility and make porn go away. Which will only drive it underground where it won’t go away but will be seedier and less safe than it is now. I am nothing like Shelley Lubben. A woman of her advanced age should know better. My cat would make a better mother figure and he licks his butt. I’m suppose to just turn into a huband-emasculating woman-hater. No thanks!

She admits to looking towards pornographers as “daddy figures”. (Yeah, that’s mother figure material.) She says about porn stars, “Don’t ever let them tell you they aren’t prostitutes. Oh yes they are.” Of course, she’s the only one making the huge distinction between the esteemed prostitute versus the lowly porn star. Then she thinks to herself, “I’m a prostitute again, [she just said she never stopped!] and I don’t know what I’m going to do with my life and I feel like no man will ever want me.” Really? You never felt that way while you were a drug addict and your daughter was at the park with a beeper so you could have unprotected sex with strangers? Then she met a Pastor’s son who had crystal meth, they stayed up on meth and “played checkers ’til 3am.” This is where she emasculates him through demeaning details about not being attracted to him but marrying him, anyway. Classy. Oh, and great for your daughters to hear, by the way. Nice way to respect your meal ticket. The actual man who saved you. She says, “We never went to the doctors [sic] or the dentist [the editorial "we", again]. The outside appearance looks pretty good.” Insinuating that the inside is neglected while the outside is kept up… although all the porn stars I know consider their teeth to be part of the “outside appearance”. I love the constant projection of her own stupidity. She does it so much better than anyone else possibly could. “We” meaning “me and the voices or lack thereof in my mostly empty head.”

She overdosed on drugs several times – slits her wrists, took pills – and none of it ever took (because she’s too dumb to even accomplish suicide… ugh!). Garret joined the army and they moved to Washington. She ran to the army psychologist one day and poured everything out and he diagnosed her! This is rich. Her list goes, “Bipolar Disorder, Impulsive Control Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Addictive Disorder” while adding that she needed to attend Anger Managment classes. Her own words. Then she went to church and the preacher pointed at her and said, “Do you know that there’s a champion in you?” Then she says it, “hit her hard [because] no one ever saw the champion in me.” Um… your husband!? You know, the one you happily emasculate in front of the world. I guess it’s a good thing you don’t have any sons because they would really be traumatized. Still, just a little girl that can’t see the gem inside herself who needs the validation from others to see what’s already there.

So, she starts to heal and go to church and every once in awhile, while she’s doing dishes or cooking and “trying to be a Mom,” (oy vey), “Satan would come along and, [whooshing sound and weird vector hand movement] here’s a scene with you and those three guys, [next whooshing sound and weird vector hand movement] here’s a scene where you’re doing prostitution with so-and-so, [third whooshing sound and weird vector hand movement] here’s a scene where you’re doing [pause, and then because she can't think of anything properly graphic] … another movie.” Her conscience didn’t make her remember she was an überwhore for several years, “Satan” did. But then again, “Satan” is one’s conscience when you don’t want to remember what you did, and “Jesus”and “God” cheer you on to do the right thing… when they’re… ignoring you… through the worst period… of your life… because… they can… Okay…?

“I started putting scriptures all over my walls like a crazy lady.” She said it. I didn’t say it, she said it. “God’s freed me from all the trauma of the sex industry.” Oh yeah. Freed you so much you’re… submerged in it… and talking about it… and obsessed with it! “Crazy lady.” She said it. I didn’t say it. “God is the biggest promise keeper. He’s the only one who never let me down.” Except when he was ignoring you, of course. “God is everything to me. He’s the air I breath. I can’t do anything without him.” Poor Garrett. How can you compete with that? If she transferred that feeling into the relationship with her husband, and had a healthy sex life with him, and worshiped him the way she worships her “God”, he’d probably be the luckiest man on the planet! She’s got loads of charisma and energy. If she loved him like she loves “God”, he’d get the masculinity she’s stripped from him, back, and their daughters would see what an actual healthy relationship looks like, rather than watching their mother rant and demand attention from strange men she doesn’t know. “I don’t love you, I’m not attracted to you, but I’ll do it [marry Garrett].” What was the other thing? Oh, after he kicked meth she said she found him boring. “I liked you better on meth!” Nice. He probably liked you better as a whore.

And then of Tiffany, her oldest, “God totally restored our relationship. She’s on fire, she ministers to the youth. She also had a problem with pornography and masturbation so she’s out there like I am, saying, ‘You know what, let’s get free from masturbation…’” So the porn industry isn’t enough, you have to preach against masturbation? Are you crazy? Well, you already covered that. There was a half-hearted bout of clapping from the crowd after that. Free from masturbation? Does “Satan” live my middle and index fingers? Give up masturbation! You really do want everyone to be crazy!

So, God “promoted us and made us move back to California.” … And she said, “No way.” And you can guess what happened after that. God said, “Yes way.” And she said, “No way.” And so on… She really did say that she said, “No way.” Like totally? Gross me out!

“At the time, I had no idea that there was a porn addiction or a porn pandemic going on.” So, all those clients just happened to be the only people paying for sex when she was a prostitute? Larry Flint becoming a millionaire with Hustler Magazine in the ’70s was just a fluke, I guess? I suppose she made as much as she did as a performer in the adult industry because the producers wanted to pay her high sums of money out of the kindness of their hearts and not because they got a huge return on their investment? Then she says that for eight years she didn’t watch t.v., she just devoted herself to “God”. “I didn’t even like t.v., I still don’t like t.v., it’s so boring.” You don’t like t.v., but you want to be all over it? “What do I want to watch t.v. for? Those people aren’t powerful.” The 700 Club isn’t powerful? ABC News? Nightline? MTV? Why did you agree to be on t.v., then, if “those people aren’t powerful?” Right.

And then, because everything else isn’t offensive enough, she talks about ministering in prisons and how, “God was delivering demons out of people, was healing them. I mean, gays were turning straight. God was performing miracles right in front of me.” So you’re against gays, too?? This sleazy, nasty, disgusting, disease bag who, in her own words, “…helped contribute to America’s epidemic of herpes,” gave her kid the boot so she could trick, smacked her husband around and cheated on him and continues to torture him by even being against masturbation, is now a moral authority on sexual orientation, too? You gotta be fucking kidding me! And she didn’t want to create her own website, but “God” told her to? And she doesn’t like t.v. because t.v. isn’t powerful? Really? Even though every time you make an appearance you re-record it and post it on YouTube! You psychotic windbag!

She says she got out of the film industry just in time for her movies not to be smeared all over the internet? Are you kidding me? You’re ugly. I can’t imagine you got out of porn as much as you just couldn’t get any more work. You’re ugly inside and out. “I know anybody who watches my stuff’s gonna get zapped by the Holy Spirit.” Or zapped by an unholy urge to cry and vomit. Then she’s talking to wives who are jealous of porn stars and says, “You’re jealous of us? We’re plastic. Every piece of us is fake.” Speak for yourself on that one, Devil Lady, because you’re right. Every piece of YOU is fake. The current weave in your head right down to your fake soul. And then she drops the “we” just in time to say, “Those girls are slaves of Satan.” You do not have the authority to speak for other people. According to you, you don’t even have the authority to speak for yourself. You “don’t do anything without God.” You don’t even move back to California or create a website of your own volition. You don’t speak for me! I don’t know who owns your brain, but they are not handling their duties very well. Your “God’s” not very impressive. He’s a sloppy, herpes-spreading, woman-hating, child-hating, husband-emasculating “God”. He’s a loser, quite frankly. Which means (because I know you’re stupid and you won’t understand), that you’re a loser, because as much as you don’t want to admit it, you chose to be a whore because you wanted to be a whore.

Then she tells husbands that, “it’s impossible for a woman to enjoy making a porn movie, because the director’s always yelling ‘Cut!’ ‘Freeze!’ Can you imagine being in a hardcore act with several performers and having to freeze in position for five minutes while they adjust lighting and cameras?” She’s talking about her gang bang movies, again. She’s kinky. I guess one-on-one is too intimate, hence all the voices in her head and the entire male-dominated group she’s addressing.

Then she describes performers as “adult survivors of child abuse, like me.” Tell your own story, Devil Lady. You are a liar once again. I didn’t suffer from child abuse. “I’ve researched hundreds of backgrounds of porn stars for the last three years.” Well, there are thousands, and you could only be researching people who want your help, and that is not “everyone”. I know plenty of McDonalds employees that want to be saved from their life, too.

And then the really creepy part comes… She points to the crowd and says, “I need you… to be our fathers.” Ew!!! I thought she said she found her father in “God”? Soliciting daddy functions from a crowd of strange men using the all encompassing “we” for women – most of whom don’t want her representation – is pretty fucking sick. “I need you men to rise up and be the leaders of this country.” Honey, those men are the leaders of this country. If Garret wasn’t insulted before, he should be insulted now. Really? You don’t see the severely warped connection between bowing down on a set around multiple strangers and taking whatever they give you, and standing in front of multiple strangers telling them you’ll take whatever they give you. Demanding it? You need voices to tell you to move to another state and create a website, and yet you want men other than your husband to “lead you”? She pleads with these men, who are the ones “in powerful positions”? Is this another “Satan” flashback of multiple men popping jizz onto your face? And really? “Women can’t save America.” You actually propose to lead porn stars out of porn so they can what? Depend on themselves, or depend on a man? Give them to someone in your congregation? That’s exactly how you are vocalizing your thoughts about a “woman’s place” under a man. Wow. How anticlimactic. But then it makes sense. If “we” are “you” (even though you don’t know who you are, or how many you are), then that means we were all molested as children, we all have herpes and daughters we’ve traumatized through husband-emasculation and abandonment, we marry men we don’t actually like and aren’t actually attracted to just because they want to marry us, we masturbate because of “Satan”, and we need to ask men we don’t know to take care of us because our dumb boring husbands are just not good enough. The whole asking men to “be our fathers” and “lead us” thing is perverted, and extremely inappropriate. If I were a woman married to one of the men in the audience, I would be highly offended.

“I was an innocent victim. I didn’t raise my hand to do that [get into the industry].” Yes, you did. “Did you know the largest group viewing porn is ages 12 to 17?” Really? Someone like your own daughter because you weren’t around to be an actual parent? “Do you know that if we don’t help these children within the next few years we’ll have an entire generation of porn addicts who’ll become our politicians and leaders.” Ha!!! As if our politicians and leaders aren’t sex addicts and perverts due to years of sexual repressions. You are fucking kidding me! “My eighteen-year-old [Tiffany] looks at me and says, ‘Mom, there’s no one to date. They’re all looking at porn.’” Evidently, she turned them onto it because you turned her onto it. “Go tell the men what they’re viewing [porn] is hamburger meat. In the form of horse meat.” What? You may be as brain dead as a Big Mac, but I’m not hamburger meat… in the form of… horse meat? What does that even mean? Bitch be crazy! Then she explains that horse meat will poison you? She’s reaching here to make the connection between porn stars as meat and porn as poison. And it’s not true, or Jack In The Box would have gone completely under years ago. She can’t even get that detail straight.  Then she says she knows that men in the audience are struggling with porn addiction. Eva Peron played this same angle with the Argentines, having been a sleazy woman who slept her way to the top. Wanting the men to see her as a fantasy, and a saint. She proved just as corrupt a leader as any man. By projecting her sex appeal, telling that crowd of men that they need to be women’s daddies and “take back the country”, she’s playing the same game. I am disgusted that she comes from the same industry I come from. I’ll take fifty uppity Jenna Jamesons over Shelley Lubben any day, because at least Jenna told the truth about herself. She’s not a good spokesperson for the industry anymore, but she doesn’t profess to talk to invisible people, not know her mind, and she doesn’t inject false words and lies upon other performer’s lives.

She tells the men suffering from porn addiction to stand up and she’ll pray. She starts praying and then she says, “God says there’s more of you that need to stand up.” My mind drifts back to what she said in the beginning of her story, “I became a master manipulator, a practiced liar, a con artist conning men out of thousands and thousands of dollars.” She never stopped. After she prays some reverberation comes out of the speaker and she says, “I command that to stop in Jesus’ name.” And when the sound guy makes it stop and she says, “God is such a showoff.” That’s right Shelley. Thing is, “God” is the sound man, and me, and even the porn stars who like their life. You need to listen to “God” more often. Your conscience isn’t worth shit.

Shelley has flipped the coin. She was extremely one way, and now she’s extremely the other way, but her coin still has two sides, and therefore two distinct faces. She’s a frustrated woman with a new gig, but her game is still the same, and my guess people treated her badly because she treated them badly.

I have sympathy for anyone who goes through difficult things, but the voices in your head are you, and if you never stop and make sense of them, you will be a constant danger to yourself and those around you. I am nothing like you and never experienced any of the things you mentioned. You boast “ex-porn star” for attention, and then boast prostitution for street cred, but the fact is, you were a prostitute for years, with only thirty movies under your belt. That doesn’t make you a star, it makes you a more recognizable whore. We all go and back and forth on our ideas and philosophies because life is ever-changing. I hated the word whore but now I like it. It’s a powerful word and only a word that powerful can be born of extreme feeling. Women have that kind of power, like it or not. But you don’t deserve to wear that word. Any person who claims to be purely controlled by outside forces is an object. There’s no word for you because, according to you, you don’t exist. No spirit and no thought that is your own. What a sad waste of life. But it’s not to late. Go worship your husband, for a change. Go give him a blow job and sit on his face and stop hitting on strangers. When you’re truly happy, you’ll find out what “God” is.

Share

Mother Jones Jumps The Antiporn Shark; Endorses The Lubben/Dines/Trueman Lunacy (So Much For "Principled Progressive Journalism")

Oh, swell.  Bad enough that AlterNet and several other outlets of “left” journalism have decided to go all-in on endorsing antiporn “feminist: ideology…but today we got the mother of all endorsements…this time from Mother Jones magazine.

Today, MJ released at their website an article by Stephanie Monciser claiming to be a reset of the events of last Tuesday’s “Pornography Harms” speakout in Washington, DC.

Unfortunately, it seems that the author must have either decided to impose her own antiporn biases on her coverage, or simply was reading off the talking points of the conference speakers.

The result was less of a rundown and more of a promo for all the tired cliches, anecdotes, and saw stories about the harms and “social costs” of porn, and a barely veiled endorsement of antiporn activism and policies.

All this, mind you, in a “leftist” magazine.

How deep is the suckage?? Let us fisk, my friends.

Have the Feds Gone Soft on Porn?

We all know how the Internet has changed the porn business. The video clips available for free to any pimply faced teen with a modem make Deep Throat look positively PG-rated. But might the Internet also change the anti-porn biz? Once the exclusive province of evangelical prudes like Phyllis Schlafly and furious feminists like Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, the evils of pornography are becoming more of a mainstream political issue—if only because most of us, at some point, have stumbled upon a site like www.naked.com while innocently searching for a fruit juice company.

OK, so porn’s availability on the Internet has made it more accessible. As if Playboy/Penthouse/HUSTLER pictorals and adult book stores and the Playboy Channel weren’t antagonizing the local censors during the last period of antiporn activism (the 1980′s) or that men and women didn’t have sex on the brain that often before VHS recorders and camcorders and digital cell phones??  And please…I watch plenty of porn as an adult all my life, and I never came upon naked.com. I never mistreated any women or beat or raped anybody, either. I guess that I’m an anomoly??

On Tuesday, a group of anti-porn activists and scholars arrived on Capitol Hill to brief members of Congress and their staffs and to call for beefed-up federal enforcement of obscenity laws. They weren’t there to fret about the pornographers of old: the loveable chauvinist Hugh Hefner and his scantily clad bunnies, or even the not-so-loveable-but-occasionally-principled First Amendment crusader, Hustler publisher Larry Flynt. No, they had come to alert Congress to websites like GagFactor.com, whose teasers alone are way more graphic than anything Hefner ever published, and whose content doesn’t portend a spirited First Amendment defense.

Ahhhh…first off, even during Hef’s golden age of Playboy, there was HUSTLER publishing content just about as “graphic”. And Penthouse was showing full-on beaver shots long before the Internet was even born. Secondly, just how many people actually have even heard of GagFactor.com (which is a site dealing with women gagging while performing fellation on overly well endowed men) before the antiporn crusaders decided to use them as scapegoats for their crusade against ALL forms of explicit sexual media??

And as for the lack of a “spirited First Amendment defense”: I’d think that a magazine purporting itself to be progressive would mention the fact that the basic reason for the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment is NOT to protect speech that is already popular, but to protect speech that is the most unpopular…because the unpopular speech is usually the greatest targets for punitive censors to attack. I mean, if GagFactor was nearly as popular as what the antiporn censors say, then it wouldn’t be quite the easy target, right??

But of course, unlike the right-wing potentates they mime, liberal and “progressive” sex censors and antiporn “feminists” have to rationalize their beliefs with their supposed principles of free expression…hence, the maze of confusing rhetoric and the ‘rope-a-dope” tactics.

“The days of women wearing a coy smile and not much else are long gone,” Gail Dines explained to the congressional crowd. A women’s studies professor at Boston’s Wheelock College and author of the upcoming book Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked our Sexuality, Dines has perused Gag Factor, and she described some of its content to the crowd—including a video of a woman with her head in a vice during oral sex. “Porn is an industrial product,” said Dines, who has studied the industry for 20-plus years. “I cannot believe how brutal it has become so quickly.” Gag Factor and their ilk, she added, are now the main source of sex education for boys.

Of course, the idea that gagging or getting off on a depiction of a woman porn actress doing a BJ while attached to a vise might not be the most arousing for the majority of male viewers or consumers of porn, or that depictions of eccentric porn scenes are really no indication of how the viewers really feel about women in general (or even the actress agreeing to do the dreaded “hummer in a vise” scene), gets somehow lost in the ether that Dines breathes continuously. In her mind and that of her associates, this is what ALL porn, even supposedly harmless nekkid women inserts, ultimately leads to, and this is how ALL men not cured by “radical feminist” or Christian fundamentalist principles get their sexual joneses off. And, of course, how porn helps capitalism make a shitload of cash, too. It’s as if Dines never heard of snuff films during the 1970′s and 1980′s.

If someone over their at that briefing had the ovaries to explain to Dines that the overwhelming majority of porn out there still consisted of the usual vanilla style sucking, licking, and fucking (mostly consisting of single girls masturbating or playing with toys, or married couples engaging in sex, or women playing with each other, would that change her view about all porn leading to scat, gag, and Max Hardcore?? Or that one of the prime producers of what she describes as the horrific, most misogynic porn happened to be a woman (Janet Zicaro/”Lizzie Borden”)??

But let us not digress too far…for Ms.Monsicer’s just warming up the orchestra.

Government prosecutors, the speakers said, haven’t kept pace with the industry’s rapid expansion. (In 1988, for instance, the adult entertainment industry released 1,300 porn videos. In 2005, it released more than 10 times as many.) Indeed, Patrick Trueman, a chief obscenity prosecutor at the Department of Justice under the first President Bush, stopped short of bashing Attorney General Eric Holder for going soft on porn. But he came mighty close, suggesting that the multibillion-dollar porn industry is a low priority for the Obama administration, even though the government typically prevails when it aims to shut down porn providers. Prosecuting the biggest fish, rather than the occasional small-fry consumer, Trueman suggested, would make a huge dent in the volume of online smut.

Obviously, this magnitudal increase in porn consumption  in nearly 20 years must be the work of organized crime or the Porn Mafia or the Great Male Mass Rape and Degradation Conspiracy…because technological advances such as HTML and portable camcorders and digital cameras and cheap personal desktop and laptop computers, plus revolutionary data storage and lightning fast broadband service, combined with plain old human curiosity and horniness, just couldn’t be responsible on its own…’ya think?

Also, it should be noted that most of the “successful” obscenity prosecutions that were delivered by the Justice Department’s Obscenity Task Force under Trueman were mostly cases involving either extreme acts that were already fundamentally unpopular due to their content approaching the line between consent and violence (such as the Max Hardcore and Lizzie Borden cases), or cases where they were able to forum shop for jurisdictions more fundamentalist and more likely to see their way (the John Stagliano case).Perhaps it was also because for Trueman, as it probably was for others in the former Bush Administration, busting porn was a hell of a lot easier fry and a greater emphasis than , say, environmental protection or civil rights enforcement; so much so that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was working day and night to expel regional attorneys who didn’t tow the antiporn line (and the “bust the liberals” line as well).

But all that doesn’t matter, since Trueman’s main goal isn’t to analyze porn viewer’s habits; it is to put them away for life and wipe any form of sexual expression not endorsed by the Religious Right off the face of the earth. Why Mother freakin’ Jones is quoting him as a valuable source is the real issue. I’m guessing, though, that like most antiporn liberals, the MJ editorial staffers decided that having Dines and Shelley Lubben over overrode any concerns about promoting the direct polar opposite of their belief system, and just let it slide in favor of peddling the antiporn “Left” position.

Christian-right groups have been complaining about porn forever, of course, and Trueman, a lawyer with the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund, falls within that camp. But technology has made the right’s argument far more compelling, as the Internet has brought pornography to a far bigger and more vulnerable audience than ever before. The adult entertainment industry has fought to protect its burgeoning business by invoking the Constitution and arguing that its work is an expression of free speech. Its lobbying group, in fact, is called the Free Speech Coalition. And it’s true that the courts have found soft-core porn like Playboy, and the bookstores selling such wares, to be constitutionally protected. (For adults, that is. Legally, soft-core porn is labeled as harmful to minors.)

Courts have also struck down as unconstitutional previous attempts by Congress to curb Internet smut with restrictions like age-verification screens and bans on teaser photos. In one case, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that parents need only put filters on their computers if they wanted to protect their kids—apparently unaware of data showing that many parents are also downloading porn.

Note the term “vulnerable”..as if people are simply incapable of making their own decisions and passing their own judgment on what they see and hear and watch. Mostly, because if people see that porn is relatively harmless and only induces people to play with their genitals or even maybe have sex with other people, then they might question all the nonsense about sexual prudery and “modesty” that they have been impaled with since all eternity.

The crack about “softcore porn is labeled as harmful to minors” is simply disingeneousness to the ultimate…since surely they know that everything from “parental advisory” labeled  CD’s to softcore late night skin flicks are readily available to people simply by getting their legal adult friends to purchase the stuff. And how can they tell that simply being “exposed” to full on erections, naked nipples, bare asses, bared midriffs and split beaveer shots will automatically turn “regular” humans into bezerk, stark-raving animals ready to attack every woman they see?? Because the Bible or Saint Andrea Dworkin said so??

Also, the fact that “parents” are downloading porn means….what?? That they are incapable of setting boundaries and limiting their young children from doing the same?? Or are only fundie Christains and/or radical feminists the only ones that can be treusted to control their baser instincts and run away from the dreaded Porn Demon??

But according to Trueman, much of the explicit material found on the Internet these days isn’t protected speech but obscenity, which is prosecutable. That means there’s likely no First Amendment protection for Gag Factor and other sites that trade in close-ups of graphic acts, lewd genital displays, sexual violence, and all the gross stuff—bestiality, incest, excretory functions—that meets the legal definition of obscenity.

Thankfully, for now at least, Trueman’s opinions on obscenity law remain just that: his opinion. As of today, the Miller Standard still exists regarding local interpretation of obscenity laws, in spite of the best efforts of the Religious Right and the Radfems to tweak the law to their own ends. But the question remains, again: why is a progressive magazine like MJ uncritically promoting his position as the default liberal position as well??

Next raving lunatic, please.

Making the point with blurry PowerPoint skin shots was Donna Rice Hughes, an “Internet safety expert” better known as the woman photographed sitting in Gary Hart’s lap as the then-presidential candidate sailed his boat, the Monkey Business, en route to the Bahamas. Hughes has since reinvented herself as an anti-porn activist. “For 15 years, children have been spoon-fed a steady diet of pornography,” she noted.

Hughes wasn’t just pushing the standard hysteria. Studies, she explained, have found that more than 40 percent of kids age 10 to 17 have checked out porn online, and many are checking out child porn, too. More compelling were her slides, used to illustrate just how easy it is to find porn simply by accident: Searching a generic term like “watersports” can turn up a host of sites featuring pictures and videos of women getting peed on. Then there’s the Boys.com/Boyz.com mix-up, which sends kids looking for a primer on teen fashion (the former) to a site offering an unfiltered view of graphic anal sex (the latter). According to Hughes, research suggests that the age of first exposure to this sort of visual is 11.

Hughes suggested that the porn industry is intentionally designing websites to lure in young users, too, in much the same way that the tobacco industry has: with cartoons. Consider “DisneyPornLand,” a site where kids can see Disney characters having sex, and freebies—graphic teaser clips available to anyone, regardless of age.

I guess that it would have been a really bad time for someone to interrupt and say that antiporn propaganda is as much responsible for promoting “watersports” as a gateway for…well, watersports, since it’s pretty likely that the people who are into golden showers probably didn’t get there merely by badly planted Google or Yahoo! searches. Not to mention the basic fact that in order to actually get into the really explicit sites, you need a credit card and serious ID…and someone will ultimately discover the credit statement down the line. I know of few 13 year olds who have credit cards not given them by their parents, you know.

Plus, unless you happen to believe in the “gateway/slippery slope” theory that ALL porn leads directly to the most graphic, horrorific, and vomit-inducing, itt’s far more likely that most adolescents who are exposed to porn during their developing years tend to find the same vanilla-style porn that most consenting adults regularly consume, not the “extreme gross-out” stuff so favored by Hughes and the like. That they tend as much to continue to act and live like nomal developing human beings seems not to reach the working synapes of our porn demonizers. Then again, letting reality get in the way of a good witch burning never was a feature of antiporn activist (un)thinking.

Oh..and if the former Donna Rice wants to believe that XXX spoofs and hardcore satire of popular Disney cartoon characters.are the basic equivalent of kiddie porn invented to corrupt the morals of impressionalble kids…..well, I guess you can’t please everybody.

She then played a short clip of interviews she has done with teenagers talking about the effect of porn on their lives and relationships. Hughes chats with “Justin, 16,” who freely admits to having a porn addiction problem. She asks whether the girls he eventually did have sex with were anything like the ones he saw in the videos. “No, ma’am. The girls in real life are nothing like in pornography,” Justin replies. “I’ve never had a girl want to do the same stuff those women did.” The bemused look on his face is worth a thousand words.

And this is a problem….how??? I thought that the principal knock on porn was that they portrayed women in real life as nothing more than “cumdumpsters” and “bi-hot sexeeee sluts” whose only purpose in life was to drop to her knees in front of every male erection they see and give up their rectums, vaginas, and mouths for the pleasure of men. In other words, porn is just an exaggerated fantasy that is not quite in touch with reality?? Of course, it’s just as if not more likely that the megative messages about women in porn and sexually assertive women can be spread just as often by people who are so threatened by women and men deliberatively breaking down the imposed restrictions and moral stopgaps that have regulated sexuality for millenia. People mosty like….antiporn activists??? No wonder why rightwingers and their radfem colleagues support sexual shaming and extreme guilttripping as acceptable policy in curing men and “slutty” women of their “sins” (or of the implanted myths of “the patriarchy”).

Oh, but I haven’t even gotten to the epic climax of the day’s business: Shelley Lubben’s turn at the mic. I will have to hold that for Part 2 of this essay; I have pressing business in order and have to go offline for a bit. But trust me, Clones, she is her typical off-the-chain whack.  I’ll be back, to paraphrase the Governator.

Share

Why Bashing Antiporn Fascists Never Makes Me Sad

[Inspired by Caroline's brilliant essay over at Uncool]

You know that I spend a lot of bandwidth here focused on exposing what I see are the lies and total wrongness of antiporn activism, especially from those pretending to be from the Left or the liberal perspective.

I’m sure that you have wondered out loud why I have such an obsession with these folks, and why shouldn’t I refocus this blog on more mundane matters, like, say, Obama’s historic candidacy or the upcoming hurricane season or the regular heat and humidity of South Louisiana??

Wehhheeelllll, Clones….if you really, really want to know, then I will amuse you with an answer.

It’s all about defending innocent people who do no harm to themselves or others against slander.

It’s all about defending the basic essential principle of social solidarity combined with respect for choice and diversity in all matters, from economics to sex.

It’s about debunking and demystifying all the rumors and memes put forth about not only the people who perform explicit sexual imagery and acts by their own choice, but those who actually enjoy the fruits of their labor.

But, mostly, because you can always count on the stupid, the insane, the totally whack, and the outright bigoted crackpot statement from the more strident of the “antipornradfems” which practically screams for a rebuttal.

Yes, I’m sure that the usual suspects do monitor and on occasion even will troll my blog so that they can fire their popguns at me for being such an evil defender of rape and murder.  I’m almost sure that Witchy-Woo, Maggie, Stormy, Sam Berg, Gooney Stan Goff, Bob Jensen, and all the rest of the AntiPorn Posse are already loading up their ammo to unload on me for  wanting to “increase men’s sexual access to women”; for being Renegade Evolution’s “pimp” (yeah, right, as if Ren Ev can’t make her own damn money on her own using her own damn talents; her use of sex being not even the best of these….and BTW, that is a high credit to her indeed, considering her sexual talents); and for basically being….well, a man who’s not afraid of either his dick or his brain and still willing to respect women for being human beings.

And that brings me to the final and ultimate reason why I will continue to bring the noise whenever it is needed; and to continue to tweak the noses of these bluenose pseudofeminists and their Christian Right allies in sexual reaction.  Actually, it’s more like several reasons, having mostly to do with some very intelligent, very talented, and very sexy women whom I have had the pleasure of meeting, debating, and even chatting with online. All of them have been associated in one way or another with performing or producing erotica/porn; and each have had their own unique experiences therein: the beautiful as well as the painful; the ecstasy as well as the agony. And yet, all of them have managed through their own ways to educate me more than any book or theory that sexual women can be as thoughtful, as passionate, and as human as any other woman or person on this earth.

Even if I never ever meet them face to face, they will have enriched my life and my brain (the big one between my shoulders as well as the little one between my legs) to my eternal benefit. And the best thing is….they still are.

Consider this collage of my inspirational erotic women my “Kiss my ass, suckas” tribute to the Antiporn Fascist League.

(Just a heads up: the pics are sexy yet safe; I can’t guarantee anything about either the women included therin or the embedded links; those specifically NSFW will be marked as such.)

Shauna_Chat_Pic1.jpg

Shauna O’Brien: Former Penthouse Pet/Softcore Erotica Super Diva/All-Around Baaaad-Asssss (Now Retired) Some background on her can be found here; see also this story on how Shauna dealt with a troll who questioned her abilities and profession.

NH008.JPG

Nina Hartley (Warning, link NSFW):  The one, the only, and the original…and the closest representative to Aphrodite we have on this earth. Enough. Freakin’. Said.

tshirt30_resize.jpg

Vicky Vette (link NFSW): From corporate management to softcore modeling to hardcore porn to her own successful adult website: A bad girl done good.  Damn good.  And damn fine, too. (And her brains and heart are even bigger than her boobs, too.)

kpar25.jpg

Keisha (another NSFW link): You do know that she’s pursuing a Masters’ Degree in Psychology, do you?? It should match her Doctorate in Sex pretty well, shouldn’t it??

alliepolice02c.jpg

Allie Chase (aka Naughty Allie): Computer geek by day; amateur swinging seductress by night…proof that you don’t have to be a professional porn actress to play the slut. Except…she does a lot more than just play. ;-)

10.jpg

Bridgett Lee (link NSFW. again): The Florida Sun Coast’s reigning hottest MILF…and a woman who has lived through one hell of a ride.

RenegadeEvolution_Smirk.jpg

And, last only in this chronology, but never in rank, the Henchwoman/Roman God Emperor known as Renegade Evolution…..you think that I’d be “pimping” her for nothing??

For these fine ladies, I fight to my death.  Though, it’s so much better to stay alive to enjoy them.

Thems who hate on them and me for liking them as women: Just kiss it….then just SYAD and STFU.  And have a nice Fourth of July holiday, too.

BTW…this is no knock whatsoever on so many other women (Belledame, Amber Rhea, Carol Queen, and a few others too numerous to mention) who have been more of a positive intellectual influence to me as a intellectual sex-pox blogger. They get my undying loyalty just as much for fighting the good fight against sexual fascism every day.
Share