Lucrezia Magazine


  • Photobucket

Sponsors



The Cozy Spot



18 posts categorized "porn"

August 09, 2008

Youthful Erotica & The End of the Civilisation?

Where nudity is concerned, there are many absurd laws in existence. For example, when World Youth Day visitors from the United States came here (some of whom were briefly interviewed in passing for TV shows), they expressed their relief at being able to enter a pub to drink alcohol at the age of eighteen. The absurdity of laws becomes more apparent when an eighteen year old is allowed to work in the adult business, but can’t drink a glass of beer in a bar. It’s not just America. In Australia, the age of sexual consent is sixteen, but sixteen year olds can’t drink alcohol or purchase cigarettes, yet they can have sex even if the approach to sex education in schools varies.

It is all quite absurd. I am not saying that all sixteen year olds should drink alcohol or smoke, but is consistency too much to ask for? As always, it lives in the too-hard basket.

Looking at the age of sexual consent in the United States, it can be said that the average age is sixteen. Few states require a female to be eighteen. Thus, the requirement for adult models to be eighteen or over may exist to appease a social minority or a minority of states that require females to be eighteen or older before they have sex.

What is my point? Where am I going? I’m heading into adult image territory, that’s where. The image Imageposted on the left hand side in fact. It initially appeared in The Sex Carnival, as an image substitute to the original Sugasm post. Even the image in the original Sugasm post depicts a young-looking woman/girl (thus, I don't see what the difference is), but the image on the left has created a little ripple in the sex blogging precinct.

First and foremost, writing an adult blog or blog with adult (namely, sexual) themes, is bound to offend someone. It can be anyone. Blogging is exactly like customer service: you cannot please everyone. That’s a given, and if bloggers say that they’re non judgmental, then it’s bullshit. Being human is about forming opinions which are based on evaluations, or personal judgments. It’s not a crime to make a personal judgment. What floats one’s boat, may not thrill another, and that’s life in a nutshell. It happens in real life, it happens on the web, and that’s about it. When bloggers do disagree with certain posts, issues and images, the disagreement stems from personal experiences and/or preferences. It is impossible to be a ‘non judgmental person.’ Frankly, I don’t believe anyone who says ‘I’m non judgmental.’ But that’s me. I’ve seen that theory proved incorrect countless times in real and virtual life.

Where sexual images are concerned, the images that offend people the most are those that -in some manner-entwine with our personal views, experiences and status.  For example, I personally don’t like the images Bill Henson produces. He may be a world renowned artist, but I wouldn’t buy them and I feel uncomfortable viewing them. Whether this is subconscious, visceral, based on my status as a parent or whatever else, is hard for me to pinpoint, but I know that I don’t like them. That’s my singular opinion, and others will differ and this is fine as it is. As to whether such images are going to encourage pedophiles to commit crimes, that is open to debate. The fact is that pedophiles are pedophiles for different reasons. In fact, they are pedophiles way before they access images on the web or other sources. That is a fact.

I can post sexual images on here, or erotic images, and I bet that even if all the models in the images visually look their age, I’ll be bound to offend someone. There are people who are offended with everyday displays of nursing mothers breastfeeding their babies in shopping malls for chrissakes, so that more or less validates the customer service tenet of being unable to please everyone.

In the realm of adult blogging, a blogger can’t be expected to uphold every single moral code. Moral codes vary. You have your standard laws (state or federal), and you have personal moral codes that arise from one’s personal culture, religion, ethnicity and so on. It is complex. I know, for example, that a small portion of Greeks I do know, who know I have this blog, never discuss it or raise the subject because they feel it immoral for me to write about sex on some level. That’s fine with me. It happens. When I recently disclosed that I published an adult website at my workplace, the two people managing the meeting (a HR person and a higher manager) were a little shocked and I must admit I didn’t care, but their judgment was almost palpable.

Now the fuss that is made concerning an image that appeared on a known adult blog is a fuss that is absurd when one takes federal laws into account. I showed the image to housemate, just the image, and asked him the following question:

“What do you think? First thoughts.”

Now it may offend a portion of people, or those who are fathers of teenaged daughters, but he didn’t react in a negative fashion.

“Nice…yum,” he responded.
“What about their age?” I asked, not offended by his response because I know housemate well enough to know that he’s not going to attack attractive girls because of an image.
“What about it?”
“Do they look underage?”
“They must be sixteen and over,” he said. That was his view, and then he commenced blow drying his hair. That was it. He didn’t transform into a creepy stereotyped pervert with a trenchoat.

My personal reaction with ‘barely legal’ porn or adult images is different. Me? I don’t get any pleasure from viewing those images. They may as well be ordinary images to me. I don’t experience sexual arousal, but I do enter my personal zone that reflects my own personal view of myself (image wise) and/or my physical view. I think part of the negative reaction relates to self-image. Whether one likes it or not, the first female reaction to ‘barely legal’ images relates to one’s view of oneself. I’m talking about attractiveness. It’s not about whether or not men viewing such images are going to be immediately transformed into rapists. That isn’t true and there is no statistical proof to support that view. As for sixteen year old girls having ‘no idea’ about consent or what they’re consenting to? I think that’s bullshit. I see sixteen year old girls making choices each day when they wear revealing or tight apparel. To say that teenagers aren’t capable of making a choice is an insult to teenagers and may shine light to the reason why teenagers rebel. Being a teenager, and being told that you can’t make a decision is like being told you’re stupid. That - whether people disagree or not - is how teenagers view it. I was a teenager once, all adults were teenagers, but it is incredible how one forgets that phase of life.

My other personal views or preferences? I don’t like Hentai images. They’re too childish to me. But that’s my preference. And I am sure that adults know that they’re animated images - in other words, not real - and that those images won’t turn adult males into rapists or pedophiles, but the initial reaction or repulsion for some is based on personal experiences and preferences.

I’d like to say that I think the adult world of entertainment is based on some altruistic concept, but it’s not. Count how many sites exist that require paid memberships and you’ll see that profit is necessary to pay for outgoings (image rights, author payments, etc). Like any job, paid membership also pays a webmaster’s rent and so what? However, there are requirements to be satisfied prior to images being posted. In the United States, the U.S.C. 2257 requires that adult models be over the legal age (18 in most cases). Therefore, there are legal requirements all over the world. It is not a case of being free to post whatever image. If there were no legal requirements around the world, then child porn would freely appear on web sites, but it does not. I have the code pasted on Lucrezia Magazine, just to ensure that I receive submissions that depict nudes over the legal age, but even so, how can I prove it? I take it on faith, and that is the best that we (those of us who publish erotic imagery) can do for the time being.

I’m not a fan of ‘Barely Legal’ porn or erotic art but I know, deep down, that this dislike of mine is based on my own personal experiences and circumstances over my adulthood. I will go further to say that there are some other forms of porn (adult porn, not the barely legal variety) I don’t really get turned on by. And even though I view the imagery and I think, ‘oh great, it’s impossible to look like that,’ and I enter my own little whinge zone, it would be insane to expect certain moral behaviors to be upheld because it is not about the moral issue here, it is about the personal view: what people post on their blogs and if a portion agree or disagree.. But that’s just me, and I’m betting that a portion of adult women, or women over the age of thirty feel a little overwhelmed by it all. Then we realize that there is a lot of image enhancement out there, and we are eventually more comfortable about the fact that we have cellulite in places. But even though I know that, I tend to switch off with barely legal adult imagery. I know it’s a sub-market, and a profitable market, but it’s also appreciated as nude art and appreciating something in visual terms doesn’t a sex offender make.

In regard to the end of innocence, or the corruption of innocence. That occurred decades ago (and it occurs today) and it has little to do with sex. Taking one historical period, that of the Vietnam War, and how that affected young men, it destroyed their optimism, faith and it resulted in a difficult reintegration in society. Now this would have definitely affected the way these men viewed relationships. For those in relationships, it would have affected their relationships after their return home. War wreaks havoc, and the reason why the Vietnam War is a good example is that many soldiers went to war at the tender age of 19, to return a shell of their former selves. Now that is more damaging than a nude image of a young teenager. You’re looking at (within this period of history) a loss of innocence. Those adults went on to have children, those children would have experienced their fathers’ post traumatic stress disorders and whatever else and how it affected their parents’ relationships, so you’re looking at widespread loss of ‘innocence.’ So the argument about our innocence in today’s world isn’t a good argument. Is there any innocence after all the wars of the last three or four decades?  We know that people will kill for ideologies. We know that people will kill for oil. We are well aware that millions of women and children die as a result of tribal vendettas and maniacal warlords, and yet we still have the audacity to discuss the loss of  innocence in relation to nude imagery? There is no loss of innocence where today’s teenagers are concerned. They’re aware of sex. They go on to create terms and phrases, their own lingo, to be a step ahead of their parents. Innocence is a plastic term. I personally think it is more appropriate in the legal sense: innocence versus guilt. As for social innocence, that is debatable.

A teenager’s innocence (which is better described as ignorance) begins to dissolve the moment the outside world, and all its triumphs and losses, enters their world via the media. You can’t switch on a news report without being updated on the number of deaths after a war, during a protest or as a result of a suicide bomber. It is this uncertainty within the world that terrifies teenagers the most, and their fear is proof of their loss of ‘innocence’ or ignorance. They no longer see the world as an idyllic space. The world isn’t like the world they knew as young children. There is the great unknown that forms the question of ‘what will happen in the future?’ or ‘what does the future hold for me (when there are all these wars happening?).’

As for nude images of young attractive women (that may be sixteen and over), women who elect to have their images taken for a few extra dollars or whatever else? That is the choice they make and while many may like to assume the negative (coercion, brainwashing, etc), the only reason why the negative is assumed is because - like it or not - certain adults cannot handle the budding sexuality of teenagers. Yes, teenagers think about sex. In fact, they think about it a lot. They’re beginning to experience emotions and bodily reactions for the first time, and it is scary and attractive in the same breath. And the other? It’s not the end of Western civilization. After all, our ancestors reproduced at a much younger age and it is only now, in our ‘advanced’ world, that we go against our evolution and have children at an age or decade that can be genetically hazardous. Personally, I don’t think that’s functional, but then again that’s me. The older a woman is, the more precarious a pregnancy can be. Not because of her age, but the quality of genes. DNA doesn’t replicate well in later years.

Our society isn’t innocent and innocence doesn’t exist once children become more aware of the world around them. After all, we demonize teenagers who happen to get pregnant, making them feel like moral misfits instead of providing resources to better enable them to continue their educations and/or establish careers. I take the more controversial view. I don’t think teenage pregnancies are the disaster they are made out to be and the only reason why countries complain about this issue is because they can’t be bothered setting aside resources for young mothers. Government derision and disgust is more reflective of government incompetence than anything else, and do these teenagers become pregnant because of nude images? There is no proof to support that view - a view that isn’t even a theory.

Another controversial angle on innocence? Innocence is lost the second/instant a parent spanks a child, teaching that child that violence is a normal reaction/response, and there are millions of children out there who are taught this each day. Violence causes more harm than nudity.

What is innocence, but a subjective construct that varies from one adult (or parent) to the next, that is influenced more by socio-economic status?

June 10, 2008

It's Official: Porn Doesn't Kill

This could be an interesting argument, especially in relation to recent UK legislation.
In Canada, moves are already underway to remove cigarette packets from general view. Which means that cigarette/tobacco products are to be stored in drawers or wall coverings, that will mean further costs for merchants.

As a smoker, I don't mind this new development. I don't see why cigarettes are sold in supermarkets. Even though it conveniences me, the idea of all those packets in full view doesn't work toward educating younger people about the shit-hole or vortex that is nicotine addiction. Many teenagers may see the open trade of cigarette packets (in supermarkets) as hypocrisy, because it is -at least in my mind- hypocrisy. If it's so bad, then why openly sell it? Many young people say or think this.

In Canada, cigarettes have become the new 'porn'.

According to one article:

The law has its critics, including those who point accusingly at Ontario's provincially owned liquor stores. But advocates say the seemingly draconian measure will eventually work, and is too important to get bogged down by morality.     "Pornography, with all its faults and deficits, won't kill you," said Michael Perley, director of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco, an anti-smoking lobby group.

Alcohol is also openly marketed, but its mortality statistics are lower. Even speed and alcohol kill more people than smoker-drivers, the tobacco industry is much more macabre - from its spin doctors to its sales representatives that dictate where their brand ought to be placed in relation to other brands in a store. It may sound crazy, but it's true. One trip to the newsagency - to buy cigarettes - confirmed it. When the newsagency's owner had difficulty locating my brand, she apologized.
"We placed them in a new spot. It takes time to get used to. Not our choice. They actually tell us where to place their brands."
"You're kidding," I said, but later, I could understand it. Even on the web, advertisers expect their ads to appear in the topmost part of a webpage - for exposure, and tobacco companies aren't any different to any other advertiser.
She shook her head, and I was perplexed. Fancy that.

But the positive thing in this story relates to porn. It's weird to have an anti-smoking campaigner come out and actually say porn doesn't kill.

May 21, 2008

Women, Sex and Religion & an Essay on BDSM/Violent Pornography

Two new essays have been added to Lucrezia Magazine tonight.

Triple_goddess_symbol The first, Women, Sex and Religion by Roxanne Rhoads explores the role of religion in shaping women's sexuality.

The second is published courtesy (permission) of Backlash and the essay author FCK and it is titled Bisexuality, BDSM and the Myth of Violent Pornography.

Keep an eye peeled as there is going to be more new content, from stories to erotic art.

May 14, 2008

When the Scapegoat is Porn & Governments are in Denial

I'll need to be forgiven beforehand, but the ongoing thoughts pertaining to any type of erotic ban continue to linger, and this, coupled to my recent Twilight Zone episodes, have led to a realization which isn't unique, but as the days pass, I've been thinking and thinking.

The Internet would have been a perfect concept for Rod Serling's Twilight Zone. The Internet could take up several teleplays. Shit, the Internet can also be the Twilight Zone for some.

The original series of the Twilight Zone aired from 1959 to 1964. An anthology consisting of mystery, horror, sci-fi and irony, it describes a situation that is beyond the realm of what people see or here. Serling called it the fifth dimension. What would the Internet be considered today? The virtual dimension or dimension that comfortably allows alternative identities and the anonymity that fashions some people into virtual ghosts, who exist but don't exist, like Serling's character Cad Wallader in The Escape Clause.

If the Internet starred in the Twilight Zone, then you'd have episodes that would begin thus:

Opening: An image of a man (or woman) logging on to the Internet, shortly after experiencing a personal shock/change.

Then in TZ tradition, a narration would follow:

"Gaze upon User Name, mild and meek, nine to five insurance case handler. Always clocks in at nine, and quits shortly after 7. A typical breed: one who needs recognition, acceptance and promotion, and justifiably so after the hours and energy User Name expends. The day is like any other: sunshine and completed work, to return home to a routine hot chocolate. But User Name hasn't slept for five days. Their marriage has recently ended, and there is no one to talk to. It is now 9pm, and User Name has logged on, and shortly, User Name will surf the Internet, and enter another realm: one that offers adoration, appeal and although both don't substitute for palpable corporate achievement, they will come close, terribly close…but things don't come for free, as User Name will soon discover…"

And then, the episode would unfold. User Name will enter a site, and will gradually develop a 'fever' of sorts, one that is similar to slot machine addiction – not quitting until some larger reward is retrieved.

The thing is this: it could be anything, from porn to finding someone to talk to, finding a group to join, or playing Solitaire until the eyes bug out. It doesn't necessarily have to be porn and it usually isn't, which is why the current wave of porn paranoia by the British government is incredible.

There are many hate groups on the web who are allowed to freely distribute their views. Their ability to do so falls under various forms of legislation covering 'freedom of speech' and while freedom of speech is a nice concept, it is also a plastic concept that can be manipulated in many forms. Just as I have the freedom to write this post, others have the freedom to post naked images of themselves on custom websites, and then there are others who create websites to cater to those who carry chips, the size of Uluru, on their shoulders, sites that preach hatred (religious or 'racial').

Societies often create an imaginary monster and the monster grows legs, or becomes some entity, when it isn't an entity. It only becomes an entity when people make it an entity. The real monster isn't the concept, it is the displacement behind the concept – people can be monsters, and this has been shown many times, and is something that is still part of society with issues like racism, hatred and religious extremism (which operates on marginalizing people). A scapegoat is created to displace seemingly overwhelming issues. It's the quick fix. Issues like racism, and now sex/erotica, often contain scapegoats.

The best example I can give is the current formation of the Ku Klux Klan web site. It no longer openly preaches its views on 'race', and it doesn't openly rave on about 'coloreds.' It has reinvented itself as a Christian site, with Christian values and views, but if one delves deeper, one will be transplanted to the recent past, and come across the same prejudices that are cleverly disguised with 'Christian values' on the home page: the scapegoats (homosexuals, and 'non-Aryans').

A much more recent concern for many governments, then again one wouldn't think so when new anti-porn or anti-erotica laws are passed, is online terrorist groups which fall under hatred groups, who have recently (according to some media sources) have been using social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace to spread their views, and hopefully recruit people. There are so many online social groups being created in Facebook, and some do tend to cross over the line, and some do (even humorously) operate on hatred. Why, more than a million people (worldwide) belong to the "I hate George W Bush" group on Facebook, and sure this group is more about sarcastic humor, focusing more on Bushisms, but things like this leave the path open for other groups. Call it by its usual name: Freedom of Speech. That is what it is, and if people don't like it, then they shouldn't champion freedom of speech, because this freedom is like a fun house or carnival: it has its beauty, and it has its sideshow alley.

One would think, especially after the recent bombings in London, that politicians in the UK would be more concerned about the issue of hatred on the Internet. It is more logical to prevent the rise of online terrorism isn't it? People who consciously seek consensual sexual pleasure aren't on a mission to subvert the world, or society. They may seek a fantasy, or may seek an intimate encounter. The most important thing is that they are cognizant of their own desires, and generally seek contentment within their personal lives. Many (the bulk) adult websites don't preach, and everything is open to interpretation, and yes, many adults are aware that the imagery is fantasy, and that models are (99% of the time) over the legal age. Many adult websites have to adhere to federal laws. As for adult websites being a lure or trap, that is a myth; people know what they are looking for beforehand, and if authorities need to control that, then they'd have to go further and eradicate the Internet altogether.

You can't have freedom of speech if a certain portion of content is banned based on flimsy definitions. As a parent, I can definitely say that the thing that creates more individual uncertainty or existential crisis among children and teenagers is their early induction to the concept of potential 'doom' or some form of apocalypse, and this unfolds on a daily basis on the television. If you asked me about who pisses me off more: pornographers or 'Green social groups', I'd say the latter. Why? Because many enjoy spreading doom to children: it's all about the end of the world with oodles of guilt, like 'drop your crisps packet on the ground, and you're evil because you're killing marine life.' That sort of shit. I receive more questions about the state of the world (and if what Al Gore says is true), from my son, than sex. Porn doesn't even enter the equation! Many impressionable children or teens can easily slip into the realm of hopelessness or impending doom, and you know what, the idea that the world will end isn't a guarantee. It's just an idea. This planet is billions of years old, of course there'll be changes. Like the previous ice age, like the numerous natural catastrophes or changing weather patterns that have shaped places like the Grand Canyon. It cannot be avoided.

And don't get me started on plastic bags. You think they can't manufacture bio-degradable plastic bags? (Do you hear me Peter Garrett - the idiot Australian MP who proposed a 'bag tax') Of course they can, but they just like to make people feel guilty, so they produce non bio-degradable bags. It's like PETA's recent campaign (based on ignorance) about mulesing, and how that has impacted Australian farmers who are losing (economically), who are forced to sell their properties. If people don't give a shit about primary industry, then they're in for a rude awakening, because some materials and foods cannot be artificially manufactured. Does the Australian government tell PETA (or release a media statement) to look at facts before impacting a wool industry? Of course not. They have no balls, and the economy suffers, while groups like PETA take advantage of Pamela Anderson-Lee's tits, tell people they are evil (in an indirect manner) for wearing Australian wool, and bingo, another discontented group is created (those who have lost their jobs/livelihoods, and may as well add confidence and self esteem, due to groups like PETA and the 'affluent' celebrities they champion: people who cling on to their wealth, who pursue idle pursuits, some of whom offer little to society but paparazzi shots of their tedious pastimes snorting coke, flashing tit and pussy, and club partying).

If people think (especially teenagers who are at a crucial developmental stage), or are led to believe, that there is little to be inspired about, or few things to really live for, it doesn't really bode well socially. This is more damaging than 'sex' or sexual imagery.

Some political groups are led, by their own belief in their savior fantasies, that they'll force people to 'wake' up by promoting terrifying concepts: the world will soon end, the weather will be out of control, or nuclear winters will be a swift reality. The bare reality? Governments can't handle their budgets, they can't regulate free trade, and many can't manage their societies on a micro-economic level, and most recently, some of these governments have funded a war (Iraq) to the point of endangering their own economies. In addition to this, many governments have given corporations free reign, which determines GDP, and few have the balls to make corporations accountable. The economic fallout from bad governmental management is seen in the world today: rising interest rates, rising prices and uncertainty, which leads to disenchantment (and other nasty things like depression), and what gets me is that many government people are still telling people that sex is subversive and it leads to violence against women.

Take England as an example, and it is a good example because that is the place that is currently foisting anti-porn laws on its population as a solution to social discord and/or economic disparity. England is notorious for being unable to manage its population economically. Firstly, it still has a class system in place. The bulk of the wealth (in terms of landmass and/or property) is owned by the smallest fraction of the population – the nobility. Second, like many societies that have wide social divides (based on educational and economic disparities), it has seen an increase in anti-social behavior, which has resulted in the ASBO. Thirdly, the rise in migration and the resultant ethnic differences within this population has also seen a slight rise in xenophobia, and this is a general feature of many societies that experience population increases based on migration. Why, xenophobia formed the bulk of my childhood here in Australia. The thing is, England does have a historical precedent for mismanaging its society. When people reach a certain number, or excessive number, social services collapse, jobs aren't readily available, living expenses inflate and criminal or anti-social activity increases: it can happen anywhere. When it happened in the 18th Century, what was the solution then? Transportation. People who struggled to make ends meet, or eat, who stole a loaf of bread or a pair of shoes, were transported to the other side of the world as convicts. We no longer live in the 18th Century, but the problems aren't that different: economic flux, higher interest rates and higher living expenses. Add this to an increasing population, and there will be a struggle, and the problem isn't sex, and the problem isn't pornography. The bulk of crime (organized and disorganized) is about regaining power and some sort of financial gain. Prime example is rape. Rape isn't about sex. It's about asserting power. The problems are far more complex than porn and sex, but because the 'class system' has to be in place, and 'parliamentary nobles' still exist, then something has to give, because the wealthy 'old money'  and traditionalists don't want to lose their (idea of) social place, and this, one some level at least, is the problem within their society. But it is also a problem in most western societies. Rising populations, bad governmental fiscal management, institutionalized racism/xenophobia tend to create negative social outcomes.

The nobility and government, always find a scapegoat in order to maintain their standard of living, and the only reason I'm focusing on the British system is due to the recent anti-porn legislation. The British social system was based on three classes: The Upper Class, Middle Class and Working Class. The nascent wave of multi-culturalism is slowly eroding this system, or forcing it to change, and there are many staunch class aficionados who abhor such change. The Middle and Working Class are the bread and butter of society, and the Upper Class is the superfluous fluff, that seldom uses their wealth to benefit their societies: the middle and working classes may as well be serfs. One could say that old money is a social bane, and although I don't follow any ideology, history has good examples of inherited wealth/noble families and the static societies they tend to create, should they be the dominant force. A good case is Imperial Russia; the populace was struggling to survive, and the imperial family lived in excess, and although Lenin and Trotsky's communism didn't save the day, they did recognize the importance of sharing wealth. It was just that Russia (compared to other countries) is considerably large, with agricultural disadvantages.

England, like Australia, and like the United States, doesn't yet recognize the importance of wealth distribution. Social ills and violence, don't arise from sex, or Internet porn, they frequently arise from socio-economic disparities within societies. Australian society was similar, by direct association, to English society: class systems. After all, Australia is a product of British colonization. That is a fact, and its recent history; everything from the defunct The White Australia Policy to The Stolen Generation reflects the tradition of the class system, and it is not a fantastic tradition or one that will win a Nobel Peace Prize. It is a socially subversive tradition and often leads to violence and crime. If it causes any offense, then tough luck. People who are pro nobility/monarchists, don't like those rotten apples because in their minds, turning one's back on monarchy is like eradicating 'tradition', but the apples are fact, and they frequently arise in every census in the form of poor education and higher infant mortality rates among the indigenous, and the recent federal proposition to use a quick fix, and ban things like pornography and alcohol in the Australia's Northern Territory, (because in their view, pornography causes pedophilia), are a cover up or denial of their own incompetence (in regard to town planning and paltry social/medical services) and institutional racism which is, like it or not, a colonial tradition that can have (and has) an impact so many generations later. But the reality is more sinister where under age sex (in this region) is concerned: some trade sex for money because of poverty.

We are not living in the Leave it to Beaver or Brady Bunch age. Children are well aware of the importance of money these days. Many teenagers are intimately acquainted with money and its relation to the acquisition of creature comforts. Treating teenagers like innocent lambs who are still in diapers is an insult to their intelligence, and believe me, like all teenagers of the past, if they want to get some sexual titillation, they'll get it. They don't need the Internet to get it.

People always seek an escape from the daily existential routine that is wedded to economic challenges, and sex is one way to escape, and it has always been this way. As much as some people would like to think that sex should be exclusively attached to love and marriage, the reality is that it doesn't have to be, and the other starker reality (for many), is that it becomes less stressful when it isn't. People have always gotten off. Ancient Egyptian workers would add sexual illustrations as graffiti, and still got on with the job, but their sexual graffiti is there to this day, and ancient Egyptian society didn't crumble due to the pornographic imagery carved into stone, or sexual fantasy for that matter.

The view, that of pornography being responsible for issues like violence, violence against women, and other social issues, is absurd. I'd even go further to say that it is bullshit of the highest order.

Oh yes, I don't like some forms of pornography. I don't like bukkake, and I don't like looking at anal close ups (they don't sexually arouse me, that is all, and the notion of a sex writer liking everything and anything is bullshit – people do have preferences), but there is a funny thing about informed choice: people don't have to look at it. People have the option of switching off.

Adults aren't infants who need a Big Brother to hold their hand.

Porn Myths: Porn as a 'Lure'

More on the current wave of adult/porn paranoia and calls to ban adult content. There always appears to be an argument that web sites lure people, and it’s something I don’t really understand. It’s an incredible assumption to make, and it’s hardly logical. A porn site ‘luring people.’

My experiences as a blogger of adult content indicate the opposite. People actually enter key words to arrive to their desired destinations, or to locate a precinct that caters to their desire, and many times they may not find it, but are led through a humungous maze of endless hits, forcing them to click through every page, and most of the time they don’t find what they are looking for, and many give up searching.

A perfect example would be today’s odd key words someone used to find my site: ‘erotic belly knife stab.’

Now one may think, ‘crikey what is that all about?’ But the person’s search may not be about sex. It could be about a horror film, or they may be a writer researching something for a novel or short story. It could be anything. Adding the above keyword search in Yahoo produces more than 55,000 hits. Who really has the energy to go through 55,000 pages? As for there being a subversive lure in the form of one particular porn site? There are none.

Related Posts:

Return to 1959 & Obscenity in the UK, or How to Create a Blackmarket

From Porn Bans to Thinkpol

May 11, 2008

Return to 1959 & 'Obscenity in the UK', or How to Create a Blackmarket

When I last blogged about the new law in the UK banning violent point, it did put a couple of noses out of joint, one commenter decided to accuse me of wanting them incarcerated, even though my definition of extreme was non-consensual content, namely paedophilia and necro,(I thought I'd make that bold so it could stand out a little more) and how law enforcement agencies ought to concentrate on those darker avenues of human exploitation (rather than lumbering everything adult into one category – because porn cannot be simplified that way), something that can be done without this sort of legislation. Most law enforcement agencies investigate illegal sexual content each day, and they don’t need laws like this to do it.

Tonight I finally got hold of the drafted copy, and I had a bit of a laugh, but also thought it quite ridiculous. I don’t understand how extreme pornography is defined as ‘pornography’ with no specific details. If something that depicts consenting adults causes arousal, it is viewed as an offence.

Does this mean that Great Britain returns to the era of book banning? It appears so. According to the definitions of this draft, books by Marquis de Sade would have to be banned, because novels like Justine, Juliette, 101 Days of Sodom, among others, contain extreme acts. Even though de Sade’s works are considered social satire by some, they can also be considered as ‘extreme pornography,’ by idiots. The acts that take place in Lady Chatterley’s lover may be deemed pornographic by some, and the fact that these love scenes can cause arousal, also fall into the law. Would Lady Chatterley’s Lover be banned also?

What I find mind boggling (referring to section 7) is the absence of under aged sex in the Extreme Images section. There are other things like bestiality and necrophilia, but there is no reference to paedophilia. Which idiot drafted this? They have probably amended it, I’m not sure, but this version on the Backlash site doesn’t have any reference to paedophilia. But the reference to the Obscenity Act of 1959 is hilarious. 1959? The current document can be read here. It's a dinosaur:

For the purposes of this Act an article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

Could it be that books may once again be banned, because Lady Chatterley's Lover was prosecuted as a result of this 'Obscenity Act' and the publishers were acquited, for the second edition to be published (and available) in 1961.

I don't want to come across as a harpie, or a bitch, but fucking hell, it's 2008!

One thing is certain. Governments are great at creating blackmarkets, and what happens when such a market is created? Hello organized crime. Because that is what happens when everything is banned based on little debate, and one doesn't have to be a law scholar to know this, or an idiot politician. The Prohibition Act of the Twenties in the US is adequate proof.

It's really strange. In 1969 Neil Armstrong said 'That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,' but is that quote applicable in this era we are living in? An era of abstinence, diminished sex education (as a result of abstinence education or non-education, because telling people it's not 'sacred' to have sex before marriage isn't education because it removes individual CHOICE), HIV spread (and denial via abstinence prevention instead of condoms), and now returning back to the Obscenity Act of 1959? Someone give the UK politician's some coffee, because methinks there's something in the tea, and no, civilization wasn't created by keeping people in the dark, but it seems that certain governments prefer the Dark Ages and the epoch of The Spanish Inquisition.

What are they going to do next. Edit instructional sex books with images? Will Alex Comfort's Joy of Sex have illustrations removed? Is an image of a blowjob a crime? There are people out there who think that an image of fellatio is obscene, that's the thing. How are they going to evaluate if a blowjob is 'extreme'? The amount of semen? Penis size? The presence or absence of the gag reflex?

April 30, 2008

When Amateur Pornmeisters are Sued

There is always debate about the acceptance of adult entertainment or porn, but there are many sleazy companies who give it a bad name by association, due to their clouded ethics. Frankly, I’d rather watch hours of Vanessa Williams promoting Pro-Activ on late night television, than have to watch those sleazy Girls Gone Wild commercials. I think the Girls Gone Wild thing is sleazy, demeaning and predatory, and that is what I thought when this company made Australian headlines last year when they tried to promote their sleazoid amateur films and recruit potential starlets out of the groups of teenagers at Schoolies week.

If I had a choice between Michael Ninn and amateur anything, I’d take Ninn. But amateur porn aside, the tactics Girls Gone Wild use, to recruit potential talent is questionable, and the way television networks accept any advertising revenue, justifying the late night time slots, is nothing short of amazing, considering the level of sleaze, not to mention shady telephone/text message deals that they promote late at night. I’ve seen more Girls Gone Wild adverts on Channel Nine, here in Sydney, than any other network. I don’t find nudity offensive. It’s the sleaze that shits me to tears. Networks such as Nine pretend to be thoughtful and community orientated by day, but come night, or late night, the sleazy adverts (and questionable products, such as ‘SMS chat’) are a joke.

To accept (and advertise) money from a company that uses alcohol to entice female teenagers to participate in films is joke worthy. The girls may not be under the legal age of sexual consent, but some Australian high school seniors are under the age of eighteen, therefore minors.

News of Ashley Dupre (Eliot Spitzer’s ‘call girl’) suing Girls Gone Wild founder Joe Francis for a staggering $US 10 million is quite pleasing to read. There is much to be said about amateur porn. Personally, I don’t like it. I find that a lot of amateur porn isn’t really amateur because many people try to ape professionals and look gauche in the process, but this aside, the sinister (and seldom discussed) side of amateur porn is that which is uploaded on sites without permission. There are cases where former partners are uploaded on porn file sharing sites, or you-tube style sites, without their knowledge, let alone permission, and what happens? Their former lovers promote the sex, gain some sort of Internet fame, and the sites earn money or fame without having to pay for the uploaded content. A hundred thousand (or more) views isn’t fame. Personal videos are a dime a dozen these days, but for those who are uploaded without their permission, and that upload containing sex, they face repercussions that can affect their personal relationships, careers and general well-being. It’s quite invasive to be uploaded without permission, or to be used as a financial vehicle without permission.

So I wish Ashley the best of luck, because Joe Francis will never have Hugh Hefner’s style and innovation. His creations reflect his sleaze.

Being a sex worker doesn't give sleazy arseholes (like Francis) the right to use a likeness to promote their product.

December 23, 2007

Porn Spam

There is currently a site that is a copycat site, trying to imitate youporn. The copycat site is posting spam comments. I'm not going to name the site, because that would be tantamount to promoting the assholes behind it, except to say that I have to temporarily moderate comments (as I don't wish to have their spam in my comments, and it appears they're getting through the spam filters, ie manually typing their rubbish in the comment field).

The site's 'admin' or contact doesn't respond to any complaints or requests, and since then my complaints have been of the irate kind. I have reported their spam to their registrar, and I'm hoping something will be done about it. Until then though, I'll be having the moderation filter on, that way I can delete the spam beforehand, as I don't wish for porn spammers to appear in my blog.

If other bloggers are experiencing this spam, I urge them to email godaddy.com which appears to be their registrar, to voice their concerns about spam. I have tried to block their IP via Typepad, but they keep changing (and get through) and I have tried blocking via word block (for that to fail).

Update: as recently as ten minutes ago, I received an email from them telling me that they'd stop the spam (in other words admitting to it). IMHO any porn site that resorts to blog spam is a shady site to begin with. For those bloggers who've received this type of spam in the passing week, you'll know which spam site I'm referring to. Personally, I hope the spam site disappears completely.

March 15, 2007

The Politician & Pornographer

Many complain about experiencing bad days at work, but I think politicians sit at the top of the Pear Shaped day. The same can apply to pornographers, and when politics and pornography coincide, things can take on a different hue.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has come under attack for appearing at the same luncheon as one Scott Phillips. The opposition, the Labor Party, has latched onto this story in today's media and they're like Pit Bulls on roids:

"But on this occasion, he appears to have been at a dinner with someone who was convicted of being a violent criminal and a porn star.

"The Prime Minister, once again, has been exposed for his double standards."

Name me one politician or political party that doesn't have double standards? I don't think politicians have 'good work days', or if they do, such days are evaluated in terms of the pros and cons, whether the pros or accomplished good deeds outweigh the cons.

If Scott King was cleaning contractor, car mechanic, bank teller, low profile doctor, would he be the focal point of this story? A large part of me doesn't think so, but because he was involved in the porn world, it's become a huge issue and the other, of him being previously prosecuted for burglary, is another, but the porn element is the first thing to get a mention.

Scott King, porn 'king'?

Don't you love election campaigns?

January 09, 2007

Πορνο = Porn

Πορνο is 'porno' in Greek. Well the English variant, porn, originates from the Greek root for the word - πόρνη (whore/harlot/prostitute) - but I found my blog on a Greek search engine tonight via an incoming referral, and they were searching for Πορνο.

Bless you my child!

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Sponsor - Bondara.co.uk

Premium Space





Shop-Tastic



Visits n Things





  • Readers Online

  • eXTReMe Tracker

  • Photobucket

  • Personal Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Categories

Reviewed By...

© Anastasia Mavromatis 2005 - 2008