Porn Perspectives

Squirming over Scroti

A New York Times article reported last week on the uproar generated over the mention of the word "scrotum" in a Newbery Medal-winning new children's book, The Higher Power of Lucky. Apparently many librarians are appalled at the anatomically-correct mention of male genitalia, used in this case to locate a snake bite on a dog's body. I mean really, what parent wants their child reading challenging, rich literature when it contains a horrific word like scrotum?

Some school librarians have vowed to ban the "Howard Stern-style shock treatment" from their schools. My reaction is predictably eye-rollingly dismissive, as is Susie Bright's anatomy of the literary sex panic.

My favorite argument against all this bruhaha is the fact that it makes librarians look bad. Thank God there are some cool ones out there to balance out the crazies in this scrotal tizzy.

(Is it offensive to stereotype librarians? Or just kinda hot?)

Safe Sex into the Golden Years

"Older folks are friskier than ever, and it’s never too late to learn about safe sex."

Thanks for the heads up, New York Times!

An article today focuses on an organization dedicated to educating older folks on the ins and outs of modern sex (oh how I can't resist the puns...).

The group’s leaders said they started sex-education courses in January after noticing an increase in sexual activity among their elderly clients, something they attribute to the popularity of Viagra and testosterone supplements as well as women shedding the idea that sex is shameful.

The grandparents weird-out issue aside, it's kind of heartwarming to know that the sexual landscape is shifting and people are staying engaged (or getting involved again) later in life. Yay for that!

Prostitution in Sweden

Normally I have a strong aversion to writing about prostitution. While it's mildly related to my topic of interest, I just can't bring myself to engage with the complex issues surrounding it. Other people spend copious amounts of time writingthinkingtalking about it, and good for them. Because I don't like to.

But! My love of Scandinavia trumps my boredom with prostitution for today's entry about the Swedish approach for dealing with prostitution.

One of the most troublesome aspects about American prostitution is how the laws play out in the real world. As you know, prostitution is illegal in this country, and the idea behind the laws is to punish those who engage in this activity. The problem is that the people who get punished most frequently and severely are the women providing the service--not the men demanding it. Furthermore, it is the street prostitutes, who thend to be of a lower socioeconomic class and often minorities, who get arrested most often--the "high class callgirls" are in a much safer position.

While there is no inherent evil in prostitution, the real-world socioeconomic breakdown into who ends up as a prostitute, who ends up as a streetwalker, and who bears the brunt of the law is deeply troubling on gender/race/class dimensions.

So the Swedish system's attempt to address the gender issue is refreshing. According to this inexplicably poorly-written article on the BBC website (you'd think they'd screen their submissions better), in Sweden  the buying of sex is a criminal act, while the selling of it is decriminalized. What this means is that the laws come down harder on those actually driving prostitution--the men who demand it. Even though I'd support altogether decriminalization, I'm thrilled to see a law progressive enough to penetrate the surface of a peceived social ill and get to its root.

The article goes on to note that the partial-decriminalization has not done much in the way of establishing public services to help prostitutes, which could have to do with the fact that prostitution hasn't been entirely decriminalized. Or maybe it's because the Swedish are spoiled by the welfare state...the article mentions a health center that provides health checks, counseling, gynecological services, and even a help line that men can call to discuss their sexual problems (?!). But no needle exchange--such deprivation!

One thing's for sure. The Swedish laws, while not perfect,  more accurately target the issue than do American laws. Go Scandinavia!

Director to Watch

I met Adult Video News writer Heidi Joy Pike while researching my thesis last year. She has been involved in the industry for years and I always liked her frank accounts of the industry's evolution (or lack thereof).

It thus thrilled me to learn that she has started directing. Her movies are not yet out, but I'll be eager to check out her work:

1) Corrupted by Justine Joli (Corrupted/New Machine, out soon)
For those who haven't yet experienced Justine, you need to. She's one of the most gorgeous women I've ever seen, both on camera and in person. I'd recommend Eon McKai's Neu Wave Hookers 2 as a primer.

2) Love Hurts (Bad Seed, due this summer)
According to AVN, this is going to be a gonzo movie in which couples fight and then have makeup sex. Interesting...

Kink at the Armory 2

Not sure if this Salon article helps or hurts my case that Kink.com moving into the SF Mission district is utterly harmless, but it's an interesting read nonetheless (thanks to Logan for the heads up!). The writer spends a day on the set of a kinky movie and delights in reporting every detail.

The Internet Takes Away Children's Innocence.

Stop the presses! Breaking news! More kids than ever before are viewing online porn!

This urgent news item has been making the rounds in the press over the past couple days. Who knew that the Internet was an increasingly popular medium? Who knew that more people are spending more time exploring the Web on a daily basis and subsequently viewing the vast variety of material available therein? And that some of these people are under 18?

This is clearly a problem. In case you don't know why, the Associated Press (the Associated Press!) quotes some pediatrician who, you know, has insight about these things. Dr. Michael Wasserman says the Internet is "beyond the wild west" and has "taken away the age of innocence."

That certainly sounds like a bad thing--taking away the age of innocence. The pure bliss that is childhood is apparently ripped asunder by the lewd lawlessness the Internet inflicts on us.

But really...and I mean really....is it such a bad thing for kids to stumble across some naked people on the Internet? Don't all kids make their way into their Dad's (or Mom's) porn collection at some point, even without the Internet entering the picture? And don't they all learn a lot about sex and sexuality in the process? (Be honest...wasn't it a delightfully educational experience for you?)

Sure, I'm against kids seeing troubling sexual scenes depicting hardcore sex, bondage, kink, bestiality, etc. No need to go from zero to 120. But the thing is random pop-up ads and the mass-marketed content that tends to dominate most of the "accidental" porn really isn't very extreme. These sites are going for the widest appeal possible, and frankly, content that appeals to the largest swath of the American public is pretty much your average porn. Certainly not anything to deeply disturb children beyond the terrors normally associated with growing up.

I obviously lack anything beyond empirical personal experience in the way of evidence for my argument, but the other side also has little to bolster their case. That's why articles like this, this, and this have to resort to hyperbole and scare tactics to rouse the public.

One point I will concede is that it is definitely suboptimal that many kids' first exposure to sex comes in the form of pornography which often depicts sex neither accurately nor respectfully. But this is a quality issue, not so much a freak-out-and-banish-porn-from-the-mainstream-Web issue.

Ultimately, it's just not a very big deal. Some kids are curious and will seek out porn; others aren't and will stumble across it. Either way, online porn is not going to ruin children. As Susie Bright aptly notes, there are many bigger problems facing the world's youth.

Kink at the Armory

The San Francisco Chronicle reported back in January that porn company Kink.com bought the abandoned SF Armory building, and now, thanks to the visceral pleasure I'm sure reporters get from typing out the word "Kink," everyone knows about the purchase and is aghast.

I'd avoided writing about this (something about not adding fuel to fire), but discussion has dragged on long enough that I can no longer hold my silence.

Plus, a Chroncile editorial from Thursday really got me steamed. Purports the editorial staff:

So, we'll simply point out that it's a bad idea to have a massive pornography filming company so close to schools, senior housing and young people who are in need of guidance...

They go on to quote one their resident expert:

"I can speak for the young men that I'm dealing with and tell you that this is going to hurt their behavioral health," said Dr. Kyra Bobinet, who works with incarcerated and high-risk young people at a neighborhood organization called Vision Youthz. "They already have a lot of confusion around seeing women as objects, and having this in their neighborhood is going to color their sense of normal."

What is it everyone is imagining will happen? That naked women will be strolling around the neighborhood? That porn will get flung out the windows on an hourly basis? That the day's footage will be projected on the side of the building?

The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of porn sets in close proximity to schools, churches, even the reader's own home--they're everywhere! In this age of Internet porn ubiquity, suburban porn sets are everywhere. While the kids are at school, while the neighbors are at church, while everyone goes about their daily lives, beieve it or not, porn is getting made. But we'd never know because porn companies can be just as discreet as anyone. In fact, they tend to be excessively private because they know how much they have to lose. 

And you know what? It doesn't hurt anybod, least of all the neighbors. If it weren't for the excessive media coverage, no one would even know about the intended use of the SF Armory building. And if people would tap into their rational selves, they wouldn't care.

Connecting to Pleasure in SF

Filed under "Only in San Francisco..." For all our bitching about Muni, let's not forget that the SF bus system rides in full support of orgasms.

Flash 'Em!

My first Girls Gone Wild-esque experience occurred at the ’07 AVN convention.

Given the ubiquity of the GGW franchise, and given my tendency to travel with and around young females, I’d always known that the day would come when a perfect stranger would come up to me, shove a camera in my face, and request that I lift my shirt in exchange for, at best, a tacky t-shirt.

Part of my study of the GGW phenomenon has involved deliberate time spent pondering what my reaction would be in such a situation. Would I do it? Lecture the cameraman on the evils of exploiting young, dunk girls? Simply say no and walk away? Drop kick the camera?

At the convention I learned that no matter how many articles one reads on the matter, no matter how fervent one’s feminist ideals, no matter the extent of premeditation, one really cannot plan one’s reaction. Academia can’t help you much.

The scene: Day two of the AVN Adult Expo. I am walking around the convention floor, taking in the sights, when suddenly an overstimulated and brightly colored couple bound into my path.

The guy, who has some sort of neon paint in his beard and hair, does the talking while his sequins-laden, dreadlocked female counterpart holds a camcorder. “Hi, we think you’re very beautiful, and we’re wondering if you’d show us your tits.”

They pause expectantly.

The subsequent sequence of events occurred in slow motion. My senses heightened. Every book, treatise, and discussion I’ve had on the topic flashed through my mind. And despite my extensive background and forethought, I was simply stunned.

Instinct kicked in.

I smiled. “Absolutely not.”

That was the end of the verbal exchange. The rest was all reaction, occurring in the space of about 2 seconds:

Me: How DARE they ask me such a thing? Me, a dignified, intelligent girl who has so much more to offer the world than a quick flash of her chest

Them: Shock—why on Earth is this girl not doing what we ask?

Me: How dare they act surprised, presuming I would do as they ask simply because I’m a female and they have a camera?

Me: Wait, I’m at a porn convention. Of all arenas in which such a request is somewhat reasonable, a porn convention is definitely up there

Them: Whatever, man. This chick is a square. Footage is not hard to find—95% of all the women here are half naked anyway

So there you have it. I didn’t undermine my principles or betray my feminist values by giving strangers access to my body. But given the venue, my indignation seems absurdly out of place. Were my principles or feminist values really threatened? I was already offering up some degree of sexual availability simply by being there, and besides, no one cared whether I cooperated or not.

For the rest of my time at the convention, I secretly hoped (feminist fantasy land) that I’d run into the Technicolor hippies again, only this time I’d ask them to flash the camera themselves—see how they feel when the tables are turned, ha! But then again, I’d bet money they’ve got a 20-volume self-filmed wall-to-wall series floating around out there. Flashing a camcorder isn’t likely to make any difference in the world to them.

So, good for me. I can feel self-righteous and indignant. No one cares.