Porno-Terrorism?

February 27, 2007 6:14 PM

Is Porn out of Control?As the internets exploded, Clinton didn't seem to care.. Should the government now focus on shutting down the industry? Some loudly think so.
posted by UseyurBrain (80 comments total)

And, just for the record, I want MORE porn!
posted by UseyurBrain at 6:14 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

They can have my porn when they pry it out of my warm, sticky hand.
posted by DU at 6:16 PM on February 27, 2007 [18 favorites has favorites]

He was unwilling to acknowledge that there was a place for any kind of adult material in the framework of the First Amendment," including publications like Playboy, Smith said. "As a matter of fact, he was extremely and completely rigid in wanting us out of business."

You have to be firm with this porn problem. It will be hard but I think we can lick it if we all come together.
posted by fleetmouse at 6:20 PM on February 27, 2007 [6 favorites has favorites]

If internet porn didn't explode, it would have been my testicles that went boom.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:21 PM on February 27, 2007

UseyurBrain posted "Clinton didn't seem to care"

Maybe Morality in Media thinks so, but I don't.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:23 PM on February 27, 2007

First they came for my copy of Buttfuck Sluts Go Nuts, and I said nothing.
posted by bardic at 6:31 PM on February 27, 2007 [9 favorites has favorites]

Clinton did sign the Communications Decency Act into law.
posted by zsazsa at 6:32 PM on February 27, 2007

Wade Smith, a lawyer who defended P.H.E., said Ward took a hard line in his distaste for pornography.

Hard line. Huh, huh.

Seriously, though, this is so quaint, isn't it?
posted by mr_roboto at 6:32 PM on February 27, 2007

I'm ok with the government looking over their shoulder, making sure the performers are of a certain age. I'm ok with storing the mags behind the counter. I'm ok with porn being restricted to adults.

Otherwise, fuck off G-man and keep your morals to yourself.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:33 PM on February 27, 2007

He should just be grateful that there isn't some highly de-centralized medium through which porn can be stored and disseminated with a few taps on the keyboard, and that it isn't a multi-billion dollar industry. That would really suck.
posted by bardic at 6:35 PM on February 27, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

God, Jan LaRue? That's the best you could do for obscenity enforcement links? Really. Why not the late Andrea Dworkin? or Tony Perkins?

And by the way: there is no way Concerned Women for America has a half-million members, perhaps they had a half-million members or perhaps their mailings have been that large at one point. But CWA is a dinky Washington lobby that just happens to have AmWay money behind it.

It's such a boring thing to hear about obscenity law enforcement. This is the story I am most often pitched by conservative lobbyists here in Washington. But, for the absolute record: to the majority of Americans, pornography is not a moral issue. It is moral choice and that should frame the debate. That conservatives fail to recognize this is stunning and shows their total lack of regard for the words of the Supreme Court. Child Porn is a moral issue, porn done without the knowledge of the participants is a moral issue; porn done with the express consent of all parties involved is not a moral issue and to frame it as such is wrong and totally inappropriate in light of the first amendment.

More to the point: conservatives are losing the battle. Their rather scurrilous attacks are based on extremely bad surveys of how many children are at one time or another looking at adult pornography. They should have learned their lesson again from the Supreme Court when it threw out a case that sought to make gun makers financially responsible for deaths occurring with their weapons. The CWA is going after completely the wrong set of people. If they want to really stop kids from looking at pornography, they should give every single one of their supposedly half-million members a free copy of an excellent safe-browsing software program. They will not do this. Instead, CWA will keep issuing these boring action alerts by one of their two staff in Washington, DC.
posted by parmanparman at 6:35 PM on February 27, 2007 [10 favorites has favorites]

some women's group is denouncing porn now?
posted by weezy at 6:35 PM on February 27, 2007

I can't say I'm shedding much of a tear in the case of Girls Gone Wild. Drunk high school girls having sex for schwag, filmed by a producer who's a rapist, I can do without.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 6:37 PM on February 27, 2007

weezy writes "some women's group is denouncing porn now?"

They're really not a "women's group". They're a few right-wing Christian lobbyist best know for their anti-porn, anti-gay, and anti-feminist press releases.

Bora Horza Gobuchul writes "I can't say I'm shedding much of a tear in the case of Girls Gone Wild. Drunk high school girls having sex for schwag, filmed by a producer who's a rapist, I can do without."

$2.1 million, though? I doubt that hurt their bottom line all too much.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:42 PM on February 27, 2007

Obviously I need to re-double my downloading efforts while I still can...
posted by Ber at 6:42 PM on February 27, 2007

Since the last porn thread, I found another excellent porn title I'd like to share: "Drowning in Bitch Juice".
posted by bob sarabia at 6:48 PM on February 27, 2007

looks like the porn industry needs to start greasing the right palms.
posted by nola at 6:59 PM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Why should it be under control?

What the we need is government grants to produce quality porn.
posted by delmoi at 7:04 PM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Somebody had to link this.
posted by Methylviolet at 7:16 PM on February 27, 2007

Beverly La Haye should worry a little less about porn and a little more about her abuse of clown makeup.

I suppose she's married to or related to (or both??!!) to the Left Behind author Tim La Haye. On that count alone, she is not the sort of woman I want to have concerned about me.
posted by brain cloud at 7:18 PM on February 27, 2007

It's just part of the multi-pronged strategy to change our society and culture and laws to match their specific religious beliefs.

More to the point: conservatives are losing the battle.
No, they're not. Just talking about it and getting publicity greases the path for the eventual court cases, and their lobbyists buying the right congresspeople. No one wants to be seen as being on the side of pornographers--especially elected officials. Think of how damaging that would be in a campaign, even with most Americans thinking it's not an issue. They're making it an issue, and the GOP certainly needs distractions like this for 08.
posted by amberglow at 7:19 PM on February 27, 2007

looks like the porn industry needs to start greasing the right palms.

Considering the whole right-handed vs. left-handed disparity as related to mouse usage, I think greasing the left palms would be more effective.
posted by Cyrano at 7:19 PM on February 27, 2007

I've got money on this guy having a really sick fetish.
posted by aliasless at 7:20 PM on February 27, 2007

I agree with Ward, the correct response to porn is vigorous action.
posted by breezeway at 7:20 PM on February 27, 2007

The Cockblocker tag is really funny. I like have this image of what, to me, is the quintessential cockblcoker, and she appears in my mind everytime I see the word cockblocker. It's as if I have this long, stand-offish relationship with her. She is always there, beckoned at any moment, blocking a lifetime of imaginary cock. She wears a blue dress with white magnolias, and I think I love her.
posted by four panels at 7:23 PM on February 27, 2007 [5 favorites has favorites]

Brent D. Ward
* AGE: 61
* FAMILY: Married, father of seven
posted by mss at 7:26 PM on February 27, 2007

So the FBI ain't prosecuting porn because nobody who actually graduated from university cares? cool.

Sadly talking about porn use is still quite taboo, giving the fundies ammunition. But we can all help simply by cracking more pleasent jokes about porn.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:29 PM on February 27, 2007

The battle against pornography will be long and hard.
posted by SPrintF at 7:30 PM on February 27, 2007

Is porn out of control? Well, porn's drunk all of the vodka, and it's puking into the stove. We need to stage an intervention, clearly.
posted by boo_radley at 7:31 PM on February 27, 2007

And for some reason, as soon as I envision my archetype cockblocker, I hear this voice jeering "Oh yeah she got them big ol' titties!"

The animus aimed at the big titty cockblocker is, for me, something worth considering.
posted by four panels at 7:35 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

If these guys ever looked into 'Second Life' their heads would explode...so to speak.
posted by UseyurBrain at 7:35 PM on February 27, 2007

Porn is not just out of control, man - it's OFF THE HOOK!
posted by stenseng at 7:36 PM on February 27, 2007

No one wants to be seen as being on the side of pornographers--especially elected officials. Think of how damaging that would be in a campaign, even with most Americans thinking it's not an issue. They're making it an issue, and the GOP certainly needs distractions like this for 08.

See, I think this cuts the other way as well. What no one wants to admit about porn is that most adults look at/consume/use the stuff at some point. Further, from what I've read about porn director types and porn company owners, they really don't tend to be godless libruls like you might expect. Most of them are straight-up libertarians who lean to the right. If anything, many of porn's biggest enemies actually come from the left (not to bandy about the useless "feminazi" trope but, well, they are out there).

So to quote someone from up-thread, this stuff is really "quaint." Americans, frankly, can't get enough of it. Why don't you try and outlaw breathing while you're at it? And Republicans are waking up to realize that you can't have your free-marketism and your moral judgementalism at once.
posted by bardic at 7:36 PM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Why is it always some kind of fighting? The problems that stem from pornography are complicated and involve populations, and little is solved by sending particular people to prison. It isn't going away. It's disappointing that we are incapable of discerning a strategy for integrating pornography into society in a healthy way.
posted by owhydididoit at 7:39 PM on February 27, 2007

More violence, less porn, to war, to war!

And, now on to some good ol' titties and beer.
posted by lometogo at 7:49 PM on February 27, 2007

"...we would like to leave you with one very important thought: Some time in the future, you may have the opportunity to serve as a juror in a so-called obscenity case. It would be wise to remember that the same people who would stop you from viewing an adult film may be back next year to complain about a book, or even a TV programme. If you can be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you can be told what to say or think. Defend your constitutionally-protected rights. No one else will do it for you. Thank you."
posted by p3on at 7:52 PM on February 27, 2007

Owhydididoit says The problems that stem from pornography are complicated and involve populations

but I disagree - the point of porn is to prevent populations - surely.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 7:59 PM on February 27, 2007

I've got money on this guy having a really sick fetish.

Brent D. Ward is an anagram for Wet Bra Nrd. I bet that's his login handle on Bodacious Tatas or someplace, what?
posted by Bixby23 at 7:59 PM on February 27, 2007

Also, "War-bent DDR." For the first time, I have an inkling how growing up under the yoke of Communism might have warped a young man's mind.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:21 PM on February 27, 2007

"He was unwilling to acknowledge that there was a place for any kind of adult material in the framework of the First Amendment..."

Sorry, but the Supreme Court says you're wrong. That's why the articles in Playboy are so good.*

*What? They are!
posted by Brittanie at 8:22 PM on February 27, 2007

"I wish the Department of Justice was full of Brent Wards."

No no no no. No.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 8:25 PM on February 27, 2007

Will nothing satiate the unholy army of Brent Wards?
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 8:26 PM on February 27, 2007

The "Concerned Women for America" are nothing but a bunch of anti-abortion/pro-Bible everywhere crazy people.

But the name of the organization sure sounds catchy, doesn't it?

There isn't a problem with pornography. If all of the porn in the US vanished overnight, we'd just restock it with the crazy stuff that comes out of Germany within hours.
posted by drstein at 8:41 PM on February 27, 2007

What, Nazis?
posted by breezeway at 8:47 PM on February 27, 2007

Brent Ward even thinks that art models should be required to wear bikinis. What a fucking freak.

While practicing law and serving on the board of Utah Citizens for Positive Community Values, Ward fought for a state law aimed at strip clubs that would have required dancers, as well as art class models and others, to wear at least a bikini. The Legislature never passed it.
posted by jayder at 9:15 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I've got money on this guy having a really sick fetish.
posted by aliasless at 7:20 PM PST on February 27

I'd back you. Bet he's on alt.com.

Internet porn is not just for horny guys living in their mom's basement. I'm female, I'm over 40, I have four children, I have a grandchild, a college education, and an IQ that made my academic advisor spit coffee on his keyboard - and I use porn. Why? Duh, to get aroused or get off. My sex drive doesn't always match my partner's (or my parner's availability). The opposition's logic is it would be better if I cheated or ignored my partner? My computer is password protected, and my toybox is locked, so where is the danger to children?

Why should it be under control? What the we need is government grants to produce quality porn.
posted by delmoi at 7:04 PM PST on February 27

lol, delmoi. The GGW videos are crap, because the girls all look like they are trying to please the guy behind the camera, not their partner or themselves. IMHO, kink.com has the best sites on the web, because you can see it is adult informed consent and they are actually enjoying themselves.

...If they want to really stop kids from looking at pornography, they should give every single one of their supposedly half-million members a free copy of an excellent safe-browsing software program...
posted by parmanparman at 6:35 PM PST on February 27

And send some adult toys to the people pushing these agendas. Maybe they are like this becase something isn't up their butt.
posted by figment of my conation at 9:26 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Gah! Three proofreads and I missed 'because'.
posted by figment of my conation at 9:27 PM on February 27, 2007

I'm surprised the whole systemic racism in the porn industry hasn't been addressed. If every other industry has to live by the bullshit anti-discrimination laws then the degenerate porn industry should too.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 9:51 PM on February 27, 2007

See, I think this cuts the other way as well. What no one wants to admit about porn is that most adults look at/consume/use the stuff at some point.
You can say that about many things---the point is whether those millions will speak up to protect it (and at what cost to themselves?) or do anything at all to stop these crusades.

And often in all these fights, the people most loudly trying to stop stuff and hurt others and reduce freedoms are just as much consumers of the stuff or practitioners (see adultering rightwingers, and closetcase GOPers, etc)--it doesn't stop them at all.
posted by amberglow at 9:51 PM on February 27, 2007

they're trying in Canada too

See online gambling and what happened with that, for an instructive example.
posted by amberglow at 9:53 PM on February 27, 2007

I sure hope some of these comments will have puns!
posted by sourwookie at 12:02 AM on February 28, 2007

I love the list of porn movies banned in Canada they've got on The Smoking Gun. "Alright, look, Ass Ramming Black Slut Rimjobbing Atheists parts 4, 6, and 24 are ok, but the rest gotta go. I'm sure that once you get inside the Canadian border, those are exclusively the only titles in the Ass Ramming Black Slut Rimjobbing Athiests series you can find. I wonder if I made a movie of myself sticking my dick in the Hoover Dam to further illustrate this point, would they ban it? What if I called a girl a slut while I did it?
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 12:19 AM on February 28, 2007

> Somebody had to link this.

Metafiler: grab your dick and double-click.
posted by NewBornHippy at 1:24 AM on February 28, 2007

Last link: It seems they're concerned that the First Amendment will self-combust if we make it a tad harder for the nation's morbidly obese porn addicts to feed an insatiable appetite.

It was as though a sizable chunk of the American public cried out at once and stopped reading.
posted by brundlefly at 2:21 AM on February 28, 2007

First, there must be an election coming up in the near future...they drag this issue out bi-annually like Osama Bin Laden and gay marriage.

Second, these people (obviously) are fools. No porn = no internet. Without the market and demand for porn, we'd still be browing in Lynx. No one would have made the investment in a graphical browser, VRML worlds (how'd that work out anyway?), streaming media, chat, and webcams without people willing to pay good money for it.
posted by rzklkng at 5:36 AM on February 28, 2007

There is no anti-porn activist who is not also a total porn-obsessed freak, not one.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:41 AM on February 28, 2007

While practicing law and serving on the board of Utah Citizens for Positive Community Values, Ward fought for a state law aimed at strip clubs that would have required dancers, as well as art class models and others, to wear at least a bikini.

This could make for a useful new euphemism.

"Did you hear about Bob? He developed a crush on Beverly LaHaye and started knitting little trousers for the legs of his dining room table. His family had him committed to the Brent Ward."
posted by maryh at 5:42 AM on February 28, 2007

On the other hand- be honest- if your (child, s.o., mother, father) announced that appearing in porn flics was their next career path, would you be proud enough to tell all your friends? As opposed to their, say, starting up the Peace Corp stint or graduating Med school with honors?

(It's a hypothetical, meant to provoke a little thought- so please, no indignant claims of hell-yes, and how-dare-you-judge-my-mother-the-porn-star-she's-just-as-good-as-you.)

That is all. Carry on sneering.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:49 AM on February 28, 2007

On the other other hand, if my child, SO, mother or father were staring in Peace Corps Perverts, you'd totally watch it, wouldn't you Indigo? You dirty, dirty boy.

(That's merely hypothetical, meant to provoke a little boner--so please, no undignified cries of "How dare you judge my tastes in porn!")
posted by octobersurprise at 6:24 AM on February 28, 2007

would you be proud enough to tell all your friends

As all my friends are involved in the adult leisure industry, hell yes.
/hypothetical

If you are reminding us that society has a warped attitude to sex, sexuality and sexual images, thank you for that timely reminder. The concept of a category called 'pornography' is not inate to the human condition, it is a construction.
posted by asok at 6:55 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

how-dare-you-judge-my-mother-the-porn-star-she's-just-as-good-as-you

My mother is far, far from being a porn star (why, the Pope weeps at the mere thought of it), but I would love to use that line as an inappropriate outburst someday.
posted by maryh at 6:57 AM on February 28, 2007

"Did you hear about Bob? He developed a crush on Beverly LaHaye and started knitting little trousers for the legs of his dining room table. His family had him committed to the Brent Ward."

I like it! And that's right next door to the place where they put guys who like to wear tiny shorts and hang around with masked men twice their age, right? You know, the Burt Ward?
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:06 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

It always struck me as a bit insane that movies and TV with excessive violence, killing, and gruesome images are somehow more acceptable for children than ordinary sex. Case in point: CSI. That show is beyond graphic, pasty dead body with decomp at ten minutes in, brain matter, blood ,etc etc. so kids can see that. But if, god forbid, kids see a breast or a butt, they'll become cannibal satanists.

Which is another example: Growing up, the movie "I Spit On Your Grave" and "Faces of Death" were on the shelves in the main area of the video store. I could rent them as a 12 year old, no questions asked. But soft core porn was in the mysterious "back room". I can assure you that those movies would have screwed me up far more than watching a video of what most adults routinely experience in the ordinary course of our normal lives.

I don't really have an explanation for this, and the "puritan" heritage of the country isn't a good one because all manner of cultures and religions seem to support this.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:23 AM on February 28, 2007

I'm surprised the whole systemic racism in the porn industry hasn't been addressed. If every other industry has to live by the bullshit anti-discrimination laws then the degenerate porn industry should too.

Please point me to this degenerate porn industry. I've just been watching the regular stuff and would like to check this out.
posted by Malenfant at 8:33 AM on February 28, 2007

Denmark seems a bit more sane, Pastabagel. I sometimes take advantage of my region free dvd player, and order stuff from overseas. I was surprised when looking at a Danish dvd site to see that porn in Denmark has a "15" certificate, not 18 like in the US. On the other hand, looking up on dvdoo.dk, I see that "I Spit On Your Grave" also has a "15" cert in Denmark.

Still, I don't hear people complaining about Danes being cannibal satanists.
posted by fings at 8:41 AM on February 28, 2007

The issue of simulated child pornography, as raised in this CWFA article is worth some non-snarky thought. I wonder how that ties in with the earlier and earlier onsets of puberty that we now have. If girls reached sexual maturity at the age of 16 in the 1840s, but 12 in the 1990s, have our tastes changed accordingly?
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 9:40 AM on February 28, 2007

It always struck me as a bit insane that movies and TV with excessive violence, killing, and gruesome images are somehow more acceptable for children than ordinary sex. Case in point: CSI. That show is beyond graphic, pasty dead body with decomp at ten minutes in, brain matter, blood ,etc etc. so kids can see that. But if, god forbid, kids see a breast or a butt, they'll become cannibal satanists.

I've never understood it either--you can show the most sadistic, gory things imaginable and there's no problem, but a nipple, or genitals, are completely unacceptable.
posted by amberglow at 9:51 AM on February 28, 2007

Shrug.

Once when my regular career stalled, I told the eventually-to-be-ex I was thinking about becoming a phone sex worker because I'd heard it was lucrative, plus I might enjoy the challenge. This woman, I hasten to add, was into some pretty cool $hit herself from time to time (sparing you the TMI), but she completely flipped out at the thought that I'd sit on the phone and talk creatively and artistically dirty with strangers for money -- you'd've thought I was suggesting she do it.

People can be such hypocrites about sex stuff....
posted by pax digita at 10:02 AM on February 28, 2007

The issue of simulated child pornography, as raised in this CWFA article

I think, yes, insofar as we have to examine why child pornography is illegal in the first place. One answer is it's illegal because its very creation is an act of sexual abuse of a child. Others might answer it's illegal because of the effect on some population of people: either it inflames the passions of pederasts, or it encourages a market of kiddie porn-trading, which leads to more minors being photographed, or it has some sort of detrimental effect on normal people, seeing minors naked and/or having sex.

In the first instance, of course, there's no rationale for banning simulated child pornography, because no actual kid gets hurt. In fact, adherents of that view might argue that a ready supply of realistic-looking simulated kiddie porn could reduce the amount of actual kiddie porn made, though I'm not personally so sure it's that straightforward.

In the first instance one could also argue it's without merit to prosecute someone for merely owning child pornography, as the real crime happened when the picture was taken. The owner might not know the child at all.

In the second instance, the material itself is considered dangerous, almost an exhortation to some crime. Its making was just the first evil wrought by it. The danger angle, I assume, is the primary justification by which even possession of child pornography is banned. I don't doubt the presence of child porn of any stripe is likely to appeal to certain tastes and maybe encourage some of them to make more. But I'm wary of accusations that normal people might be affected in dangerous ways.

And in any case, I'm real wary of the arbitrary stratification of "children" from "adults." In particular, I find pornography featuring pre-pubescent children much more abhorrent than porn featuring sexually mature teenagers who are still under the age of majority. Among pubescents, I think most people would find porn featuring tweeners with low Tanner scores more icky than older, Tanner stage-5 jailbait. I'm going out on a limb here, but I figure the adage "old enough to bleed is old enough to breed" is not generally operant among the widest swath of Americans.

But still, the effects of porn featuring seventeen year-olds or adults who look seventeen is not something I'd be all that concerned about. I would be tremendously concerned about the making of it--was the person actually under-age? Did e understand what was happening? Age of consent? Exploitation? Blah? But I'm not worried watching teenagers fuck is going to warp people, because a fair number of normal people like to think about teenagers fucking anyway.

Now, if you got someone with severe growth retardation, someone like Emmanuel Lewis who apparently doesn't even grow pubic hair, and you get them to make some porn and then bill it as child pornography, there's a meatier debate. The case is easier to make that its very existence might constitute a harm, because it's a manifestation of a more pathological set of desires. Though I would be interested in knowing who might get prosecuted should our theoretical prepubescent-looking adult make a private sex video, as all celebrities seem to be doing nowadays, and it was made public. The actor, who never intended public viewing and its attendant harms? The distributor?

So but yeah, I guess I've thought about all of this way too much.
posted by adoarns at 10:37 AM on February 28, 2007

Plus I don't ever trust reading about sex and morals from the CWA, just like I don't ever trust reading about economics from Daily Kos.
posted by adoarns at 10:39 AM on February 28, 2007

"If girls reached sexual maturity at the age of 16 in the 1840s, but 12 in the 1990s, have our tastes changed accordingly?"

Age isn't important IMO...what is important is sexual maturity. If there are curves, men will like it...bottom line (Not to say you would or should act on 'liking' the curves of a 13 year old girl, just that nature has made men find that appealing).
posted by UseyurBrain at 10:56 AM on February 28, 2007

The reason girls reach sexual maturity earlier now has nothing to do with porn--it's because we aren't malnourished.

Once a girl is around the age of puberty and has enough body fat, the process can start. That used to happen later because people didn't have enough high-fat/high protein food. Now, it happens earlier-- and the studies claiming that there has been an additional recent drop were confounded by changing ethnic make-up of the population, apparently.
posted by Maias at 11:18 AM on February 28, 2007

Oh, and...we've read about the "Uncanny Valley" and the increasingly lifelike representation of faces here in the blue...what happens when it's possible to create perfectly lifelike porn entirely using computer graphics and no images of actual human beings are used? Anna Nicole, only with the face of an eight-year-old -- and entirely beyond prosecution because it's not real & so doesn't fall under any existing porn statutes?
posted by pax digita at 11:31 AM on February 28, 2007

They can have my porn when they pry it out of my warm, sticky hand.

Well, you'll obviously have finished with it for the time being.
posted by Sparx at 1:12 PM on February 28, 2007

"On the other other hand, if my child, SO, mother or father were staring in Peace Corps Perverts, you'd totally watch it, wouldn't you Indigo? You dirty, dirty boy. "

I woulda gone with Peace Corps Whore.

"I can assure you that those movies would have screwed me up far more than watching a video of what most adults routinely experience in the ordinary course of our normal lives.

I don't really have an explanation for this, and the "puritan" heritage of the country isn't a good one because all manner of cultures and religions seem to support this."

Premarital sex leads to inefficient distribution of resources, and harms the ability of the clan to secure loyalties and herit their serfs.

"Still, I don't hear people complaining about Danes being cannibal satanists."

I complain, but nobody listens.

"In the first instance one could also argue it's without merit to prosecute someone for merely owning child pornography, as the real crime happened when the picture was taken. The owner might not know the child at all."

No, since you're prosecuting them for benefiting from an illegal act. It's a crime to receive stolen property, no matter how much you explain to the officer that the real crime was contained in the theft. This can be extended, with a little mental magic, to banning simulated child porn, as long as we assume that people can't tell the difference (since it's always going to be cheaper to photograph some real kid than to make a computer image outside of the costs imposed by regulation).
posted by klangklangston at 1:14 PM on February 28, 2007

Bah. My friend who dropped out of all-girls Catholic school to become a stripper is one of the most well-adjusted people I know. Much more so than our (mutual) friends who all got knocked up, married and divorced before they even turned 30.

I hate the victimization mentality that's so prevalent whenever porn/stripping/etc is discussed... ooooh, they're being abused by eeeevil men, la la la. If anything, strippers are taking advantage of you poor menfolk. And they totally know it.

Porn videos, on the other hand, have the potential for much more abuse. It's capitalism, not content, though. The producers and distributors are the ones making most of the money, not the actresses (despite porn being the one industry where women consistently earn more than men).

What I'd like to see is more female producers and distributors (such as Jenna Jameson) to level that particular playing field and less "but think of the children!"-ing. Porn's always going to exist. Why not spend more time making sure the working conditions are acceptable -- like that strip club in SF that unionized -- and less time worrying about the morals of the people who choose to create and use porn?
posted by bitter-girl.com at 1:31 PM on February 28, 2007

Should the government now focus on shutting down the industry?

Ummm... it is and making my life Hell while they're at it.

Earlier this year new standards for 2257 documentation came into effect, basicly doubling or tripling the amount of behind the scenes paperwork and bureaucracy needed to produce adult entertainment. They've been stepping up raids on companies, going after smaller, cheaper, crasser companies first... but it's only a matter of time before they get to companies like the one I work at. Huge fines, piles of negative press, it's all coming. Mostly because given the raw number of absolute screwoffs that work in Adult Entertainment, a big mistake is inevitable. I spend more time now at work revising or finding paperwork than I do actually editing movies. And then I go back a week later and revise it again because our legal team attended an seminar with the FBI and decided we need to be stricter to protect our ass from the inevitable raid.
posted by davros42 at 1:47 PM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

"Huge fines, piles of negative press, it's all coming. Mostly because given the raw number of absolute screwoffs that work in Adult Entertainment, a big mistake is inevitable."

Methinks I smell a business opportunity: 'PORNCENTURE' a 'porn paperwork' outsourcing company. We promise 100% 2257 form accuracy!

Also: 'we need to talk about your 2257 TPS reports'
posted by UseyurBrain at 4:18 PM on February 28, 2007

Heeeey, that's not a bad idea, UseyurBrain. If I lived in one of the porn-film hotbeds, I'd totally do that...
posted by bitter-girl.com at 7:07 AM on March 1, 2007

So just base your porn buisness outside the US? You can even shoot the film in the U.S. but distribute from another country.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:54 PM on March 4, 2007