Why Mike South Is A Certified Asshole: The Slut-Baiting of Bree Olson

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Give Me That Old Time College Sex Censorship (Or, Towson Univ. Bans "Mutual Masturbation" Column)

Funny thing about college journalistic standards here in these United States....you can say just about anything about politicians, even lie about their birthplaces, their policies, even their personal sex lives, and all that is protected, supposedly, by the First Amendment.

But try to talk frankly about mutually pleasurable sex that bothers no one and even helps fight STI's..and you get the Joycelyn Elders treatment....scorn, disgust, and rapid unemployment.

Want proof?? Try going to Towson State University.

Their student-run college newspaper, The Townlight, used to feature a column by a student named Lux -- gender undetermined, but based on history, probably female -- titled "The Bed Post", in which she would discuss the more....shall we say, intimate side of college life.

I say "was", because that column is now no more....because the editor of that paper canned it after some major stink was raised about the last "The Bed Post" column which was posted on September 27th.

The subject that created so much controversy:  Mutual Masturbation.

Yup....that would be the act of two or more people joining together to share some self-pleasure through touching themselves (but not each other).

So what was the controversy, then?? Too many explicit bombs in a "family-oriented" college newspaper?? The columnist revealed as a supporter of NAMBLA or a porn starlet?? An explicit attack on the local Campus Crusade for Christ or the College Republicans local???

Nope, not that at all.  Here's a transcript of the column in its entirity (the original version can be found via the embedded link):

The Bed Post: How to make the feeling mutual

Happy Monday, my lovely, loyal readers, I’m hoping you had a great weekend and didn’t get into trouble. What did I do this weekend? It was actually pretty standard. I caught up on some sleep, hung out with some pals, got some work done, did a little mutual masturbation.

What?

That’s not how you spend your weekends?

Well, you might want to start.

According to Wikipedia, mutual masturbation is “a sexual act where two or more people stimulate themselves or one another sexually, usually with the hands.”

According to Lux, mutual masturbation is a way of life.

Got a boyfriend or girlfriend?

If you’re new to this concept, mutual masturbation is a great way to spice things up between the two of you.

Try not touching each other and only stimulate yourselves. Since you know your body so well, your hands will work exactly how you want them to, so you’ll always feel good.

You’ll stay safe, while being intimate at the same time. It’s sexy to watch someone pleasure themselves and even sexier for you to pleasure yourself with someone else watching.

Make a lot of eye contact during the act and there’s a good chance that you will both orgasm around the same time.

Want to take it to the next level? Try lying next to each other and linking arms.

Girls – add a vibrator or dildo into your routine.

Boys – find out if your girl will let you finish somewhere other than on your stomach. I tend to ask for it on my chest or back.

The other type of mutual masturbation might be better suited for someone that you aren’t in a serious relationship with.

This occurs when you both use your hands to pleasure each other. If you’ve been keeping up with my columns, you’re already all experts in the hand job department.

As for heavy petting, girls – tell your partner exactly how you like it, just as you would while receiving oral sex.

Want to make sure they really understand? Show them!

Use your hand or finger(s) and let them follow along.

Be careful, however, because PDS is a serious risk.

Pleasure Distraction Syndrome, or PDS, is something I made up completely to describe the situation in which both individuals are being stimulated and it feels so good, they forget what they are doing to the other person and stop.

Symptoms include failure to continue sexual act, confusion, and, if left untreated, will result in orgasm.

I almost always succumb to PDS while 69ing.

Just try to stay focused on the other person and what you’re doing, but if it happens, look on the bright side - your partner is very good at pleasuring you.

Regardless of how you do it, you should both be aroused, pleased and totally safe.

Mutual masturbation is a great way to make sure that you get what you want, your partner gets what he or she wants, and no one ends up pregnant.

So next weekend, in between watching movies with your roommates and partying with your friends, keep your hands busy with that lucky person in your life.

Now if you excuse me, the PDS is setting in.

Add another notch,

OK...so the column was a touch explicit, with direct reference to hand jobs and fellatio and oral sex, but as sex columns go, it's pretty tame.

Nevertheless, talking honestly about sex in college campuses still tends to bring out the worst in sexual prudery, and that's probably what prompted the Townson administration to come down hard on The Townlight.  So much so that the paper on October 4th issued a special statement officially pulling "The Bed Post from circulation.

Perhaps that's what prompted Carrie Wood, who was the editor-in-chief of The Townlight at that time, to submit her own resignation papers on October 4th; citing a nasty email from the TU President which basically ripped the paper to shreds for allowing "pornography" to be shown in public. Unfortunately, in her haste to fall on her proverbial sword, Wood seems to want to throw Lux under the bus in typical Puritan liberal fashion.  Quoting from the resignation letter, which was posted to the paper here):

On the morning of Wednesday, September 30, I received an e-mail in my personal Towson student e-mail account from Towson University President Robert Caret. I felt the e-mail was written in an intimidating, patronizing and bullying tone, and it was copied to TU’s chief of staff and the University’s lawyer for them to see as well. Seeing this e-mail pop into my personal inbox right after I had woken up sent me into somewhat of a panic, and I responded out of feelings of fear and of being threatened. In my response, passages were worded in such a way that made it look as if I was throwing my staff under the bus and pushing the responsibility for the column on them. In no way was this my intent; however, I realize that perception is reality and that such a response makes The Towerlight look bad in the face of the University community.

I understand that my e-mail was just one of several poor decisions made by me regarding “The Bed Post.” Hindsight is 20-20, and, if I ever had the chance to do this all over again, I would have never run the column in the first place. I should have had the foresight to realize what “The Bed Post” would do to the paper and the reputation of both the paper and of Baltimore Student Media.

Oh, I see, Ms. Wood....so the "reputation" of your newspaper is so threatened by the existence of one column that seeks to use humor and mutual consent to promote safe sex practices that you feel the need to resign your post?? I guess that articles on revelations about President Obama's birth certificate is more acceptable to you than talking honestly about masturbation?? Or, even safe sex??

But, not too much harm to its "reputation", though, for Wood to bail out completely...she will stay on as a regular columnist there.

Meanwhile, outside of the usual Teabagger/Religious Fundie crowd, the basic reaction from Towson students amounts to: "WTF?!?" This comment generally speaks for the consensus:

[Posted by Gwendolyn Norton on 10/7/09 @ 12:04 PM]  *This* column actually made national news? Seriously, I got here from CNN. What kind of morons run this school? OMG- the kids have figured out a way to have sex that has practical zero risk for STD's or pregnancy and they're spreading the word!!! Stop it before the STD and pregnancy rates drop!!!


Kudos to the author and editor, and "you are a total and complete moron" to anyone who purports to have a mission (in fact, paid position) at this school in perpetuating knowledge but would move immediately to squash some of the most important knowledge that can be imparted and punish those who would disseminate it.

But as bad as the actual event was, it pales to how the local media has been reporting all the controversy...with all the usual squemishness about sex (and the prurience included within) that makes our media stand so proud...with their heads firmly placed in the sand. Blogger Amanda Hess of the DC-based blog The Sexist waylaided a particularly sappy attempt by the local ABC-TV news affiliate WMAR-TV to report on the Towson sex column fracus. You'll have to read the full entry to get the gist of Hess' comparison/contrast, but her concluding graphs gets to the point:

The Bed Post’s controversial references to self-pleasure have got nothing on ABC News’ edgy decision to misspell Wood’s name, mistype the name of the column (it’s The Bed Post), and misquote Wood. She made “some poor editorial decision”? Which editorial decision was that?

[...]

Yes, the Bed Post got explicit. Maybe ABC News should try that, instead of printing comments about “people” “overreacting” or “supporting” the decision to run “it,” no matter “what people tell you.” Just so we’re clear: THEY’RE ALL TALKING ABOUT MASTURBATION. There. MASTURBATION. That was easy, wasn’t it?

Maybe they should have been talking about trips to Argentina or trysts in public restroom stalls.  That would have been more...acceptable, I guess.

Booblemania 2009: Where All Is Fair In Love And War...And Boobs

There is something to be said about the comparison between porn and pro wrestling.

Both have been accused of being fake.

Both generally share the same demographic.

Both have been accused of exploiting their talent for the quick buck.

But both can not be accused of being....boring.

Once you cut through the noise and basically enjoy both for what they really are -- which is, entertainment -- and not take it too seriously, then you can freely defend and enjoy them both.

Only difference is that in the adult entertaiment industry, the talent doesn't attempt to bash each other's heads in.  At least, not in the actual performance.

On the other hand, the competition to be recognized as "The Next Big Thing" can often come pretty damn close to WWE Smackdown! quality, especially when it comes to the yearly beauty contests.

Booble's "Girl of the Year" contest for this year is one striking example.

Before I continue, a disclosure alert: I am an moderator of one of Vicky Vette's Yahoo! groups, as well as a few other of the mentioned ladies involved; and I also help moderate Vicky's forum at her website. However, my views represent my own, and no one else's...and do not reflect anyone else.

With that out of the way, let's meet the combatants....errrrrr, the participants.

This lovely lady happens to be Vicky Vette, the reigning and current Booble Girl of the Year. She beat out Tera Patrick and a host of other beauties to gain the crown; and she has been representing her title pretty well...a hell of a lot better than Carrie Prejean (and certainly with much less hypocrisy, since, unlike the former Miss California USA, Vicky actually LIKES sex and doesn't hate people). She's even gone so far as to open up a blog over at Booble to promote and groom her successor for 2009-2010...along with more general bloggy things that reigning adult beauty queens do.

The way that Booble works is that fans select a Girl of the Month each month based on fan votes; with the 12 monthly winners battling it out at the end for the ultimate prize.

What makes this year's finals so interesting (besides the mass boobage, of course), is the connections between some of the finalists. Especially, the connections between some of the finalists and the reigning queen, who probably is trying to keep the Booble crown in the family, I guess. (Links to their Booble vote pages are embedded, in case you want to vote for your favorite.)

Say hello to Sunny Lane....former professional athlete turned into professional pornster and part time whore (no joke, she actually lives part time at Dennis Hof's Bunny Ranch brothel). As of right now, she's the top votegetter in the BGotY contest, and she's well on her way to capturing the crown. She qualified by winning in May of this year. The fact that she happens to be a member of Vicky's growing network of pro strumpets (the Vette Nation Army) hasn't hurt her efforts at all...not that she's just sitting back on her...errrrrr...laurels, either.

And this gorgeous woman is Mariah Milano,.more of a pro model than a porn strumpet, but more than capable of holding her own. She has been in an neck and neck (or maybe, more like nipple and nipple???) race with Sunny for the top slot (she qualified by winning in November 2008). Some folk have been saying that some of the surges that Mariah has used to keep herself at or near the top might be a bit artifically created via gaming Booble's voting system (which allows only one fan vote per IP per day...but no one has been able to prove that.) Plus, Mariah has been using her MySpace and Twitter pages to go at it hard.

And now, here's Michelle Lay, who fashions herself as a California bad girl, and proof that you don't need DD-size boobs to be considered sexy enough for Booble's contest.Oh...and did I mention that she is also a charter member of Vicky's VNA??  She qualified by winning in June of this year.

...and now you're looking at Britney Brooks, one of the up and cumming adult models; who also just so happens to be yet another one of Vicky's VNA girls...which probably accounts for how she made it to the finals by winning the month of July. Or....maybe it's just because she's that damn sexy.

And finally, we have Sara Jay, who gives new meaning to the term "voluptuous, big breasted blonde", and is no slouch in the interracial circut; she was bestowed with the award for Best Interacial Female Star at this year's Urban X Awards. No, she's NOT a VNA member, just an independent...at least, for now.

There are other girls in the contest, of course, and if I had the time, I would analyze all of them..but you can go over to the Booble Fansigns page and check them out for yourself and vote. The final winner will be crowned by the first of October.

Incidentally, you will notice that the three VNA girls mentioned here -- Sunny, Michelle, and Britney -- won in back-to-back-to-back months. Conspiracy?? Good timing?? The dedication of the VNA?? Vicky cooking the books?? (Just kidding on that last one, General!!!  LOL) You decide.

Why Playboy Columnists Who Impose Their Cracked Sexual Fee-Fees Should Be Retired...Or Sent To A Really Pissed-Off Domme

Opinions on sex are like assholes, or so the saying goes....everyone has one.

And when you have access to a blog and too much free time on your hands, it's quite easy to put your opinions out there.

That's all fine and good...usually.

But when some folk decide that their opinions should be treated as edicts to be imposed on the public at large, or absolute truths which should be taken as the ultimate sage advice...then the shields of skepticism and BS firewalls need to be activated.

Often times, these new commisar wannabes attempt to mask their edicts in the guise of "humor", as in "Gee, I really didn't mean to impose my personal beliefs on you..even though I really do think that you should, for your own good heed my sage advice, since I get paid plenty bucks to dish it out!! Can't you take a joke??"

Ah....when it comes to demonizing one's personal sexual choices, dewd...hell to the no. That just isn't a laugh line.

Usually it's the typical "women's mags" like Cosmo or lad mags like MAXIM who attempt this nonsense of friendly policing of individual sexual choices.

You wouldn't expect it coming from a progressive magazine like Playboy, though...wouldn't you?? Yeah, right.

Which brings us to a column that appeared at Playboy's website by a supposed "sex guru" named John DeVore. His bio describes him as "a hack, troll, and bon vivant", and quotes his many writings for such outlets as CNN, Comedy Central, and the spoof site WhiteHouse.org.

Anyways, I guess that he must have some game in him for Playboy to pay him to run his smack on sexual matters.

This particular column was DeVore's attempt to use his "humor" to offer up his opinions on "The Top 10 Sex Acts That Should Be Retired"...namely, those popular sex act trends that he sees as overrated and destined for the dumpster.

Well...he's entitled to his opinion, and since he's getting paid for it, I guess he has Scoreboard...but that doesn't mean that moi can't point out where his opinions are a bit...shall we say, lacking in fact or disrespectful of choice.

And yes, Clones, I know that he intended this to be taken lightly....so is my response to be taken the same way.

I'll just go down the list, and offer my points in the fly.

Notice that he also gives for some of his "pointers" alternatives that he would prefer rather than those he maligns.....I'll comment on that, too.

1. Sex Act: Spanking
Why It Should Be Retired: Fine, a little ass slap never hurt anybody. But paddles? No, we will not bend over. And no you will not spank us. Why? Because we are grown-ass adults. We won’t sit in the corner, either. People who are obsessed with spanking are bringing their therapy into the bedroom. You know what you should bring into the bedroom? Your genitals.
Alternative Sex Act: Hair pulling. We’re not talking fistfuls of scalp. But a good, aggressive yank says pay attention and let’s bang it out better than any fey pat on the ass.

Right off the bat. Dewd: Grown-ass adults can and do get off on spanking...it is NOT the same as corporal punishment. Does the name Rachel Kramer Bussel ring your ears, fool??

Apparently, DeVore is one who only wants standard penile-vaginal sex with no frills, no roleplay, no accoutements, and none of those distractions that get in the way of his dick. Good for him..but I'd hate to be the woman who actually likes getting her ass reddened for pleasure who has to endure someone like him.

And..."hair pulling"??? Gee, Johnny....you mean, your hair pulled?? Because I'm sure that if you ever attempted to pull the hair of a woman against her will during the act of banging her, you'd probably get a kick in the crotch. And not in the sexy way, either.

2. Sex Act: Threesomes
Why It Should Be Retired: It’s the sexual equivalent of the buffet at the Golden Corral: If one chick is good, then two must be awesome, right? Wrong, Augustus Gloop. Having a spare is only necessary when it comes to tires, batteries and machine gun magazines. Most guys have enough problems pleasing one woman, and the entire threesome fantasy hinges on a self-deceiving ego trip. Two women do not make twice the man.
Alternative Sex Act: How about a “Giving One Woman an Orgasm-some.”

Oh, goodness...he's one of those "one-women men". Hey, Johnny, what's the problem....you lacking in YOUR pussy-licking skills that you can't even please your ONE woman?? What the hell would you do if your sweetie decided to invite another hot woman into the picture?? Or...would you just sit back and watch them get at it??

Or...maybe he's really afraid that his sweetie would come along and invite another MAN into the pic for a MMF threesome. Gee, that wouldn't be too threatening, wouldn't it??

Mr. DeVore probably must realize that the women featured in the magazine that pays his freakin' salary aren't just blow up dolls for his pleasure, right?? They do happen to be women with their own sexual needs and desires...and not all of those desires will fit so neatly into his perfect male template...'ya know?? But then again, I don't see any of the Playmates writing supposedly irreverent sex columns attempting to play "sex guru...they'd probably kick his ass.

3. Sex Act: Sex in the Shower
Why It Should Be Retired: Women love sex in the shower. They claim it’s sensual. This claim is highly disputable, since there’s nothing sensual about slipping, soap in the eyes or formerly hot water turning testicle-witheringly cold. Women like sex in the shower because they are all clean freaks. Sex is supposed to be dirty, stinky and sticky. It’s just part of the fun of the reproductive act.
Alternative Sex Act: Sex after the gym, when everything is super musky. Shower after.

Uhhhh..I don't know about you, but clean does add a lot to sex, doesn't it?? No, soap in the eyes isn't sexually arousing (but neither is cum in the eyes, either, and I didn't see DeVore attack facials as overrated anywhere here, didn't I?? And if DeVore finds the musty smell of raw football locker room that arousing...well, to each his fetish.

4. Sex Act: Handcuffs
Why It Should Be Retired: Handcuffs immediately recall the po-po, and there is nothing sexy about Johnny Law. Besides, is there any more hackneyed and unoriginal a fetish than wanting to shackle someone to a bed? It’s a control freak's go-to kink, but sex is already about losing control. Lighten up. Plus anything involving your being naked and a key is just a bad idea. We’re here to help you, T.J. Hooker.
Alternative Sex Act: If you must tie or be tied, try fruit leather straps, because you should be able to chew your way out of love restraints. Mmm, fruity deliciousness.

Ahhhh...no. Simply...no. You don't get it, Johnny. It's all about the restraint, about the relax and lose control and let the other person use you for your own pleasure. It's about being helpless to respond to all that (s)he's doing to you, and letting the response control you. Again, he acts like everyone wants to be the user, and forgets about the usee.

And no, leather straps won't quite work....leather isn't too tasty.

5. Sex Act: Brazilians
Why It Should Be Retired: It is not sexy to sleep with a woman whose vagina looks prepubescent. An airstrip? Fine. But squeaky like a dolphin? Not so much. Some might argue that it’s more hygienic, but they are wrong. You know what’s hygienic? Soap and water. The very act of even getting a Brazilian is full-on medieval…so much torturous ripping. There is no point in mutilating your beautiful ladyflower.
Alternative Sex Act: Ladies, let your 1970s jungle bush bloom.

Oh, Goddess, another full bush freak. Look, Johnny, not all of us want to fish bush hairs out of our teeth following a session of muff diving...and women aren't only going full-on bald. I prefer a landing strip, myself.

And try asking those who have done Brazilians about their experience before you run your "torture" smack...they may even say that the "torture" was part of the pleasure.

And Hell to the no, having a bald pussy does not turn a MILF into an prepubescent, nor does it turn her partner into a silent peodphile.

6. Sex Act: Road Head
Why It Should Be Retired: Why it’s sexy to get a blow job while operating heavy machinery is utterly baffling. Is it a rush, the ability to drive a car while getting serviced? It’s a nice gesture on her part, but you don’t need to be that relaxed while hurtling through traffic at 55 miles an hour. Concentrate so you don't wrap your car around any poles—she can wrap her lips around yours later.
Alternative Sex Act: Church parking lot head. It’s safer and sacrilegious. Naughty!

Now, that one I can somewhat agree with.....kinda hard to concentrate on the road when, say, Sara Jay is dropping her lipstick all over your balls. Which is why all good road headers ultimately finish the act on the side of the road. Then again..how else to get through bumper-to-bumper stop-and-go traffic?? And what's to say that it has to be the freakin' driver getting his hummer on..that's why God and the Goddess invented back seats, you know.

As for the alternative of church parking lots.....OK, pretty naughty, but also a hell of a lot more risky. Cops do tend to patrol churches, you know.

7. Sex Act: Flavored Sexual Lubricant
Why It Should Be Retired: If we wanted to go down on a slice of strawberry shortcake, we'd stick our tongues into an actual slice of strawberry shortcake. Short of that, we're fans of woman-flavor, and we don’t need salves to poorly fool us otherwise.
Alternative Sex Act: If you really desire some other taste when crunching it, try actual condiments. Or gravy.

On the one hand, I can see how flavored lube can cut into the taste of natural woman juice for those who prefer that. On the other hand, though..better sweet and safe than just plowing into a dry pussy.

But, using real condiments for lube??? Hey, Johnny, are you going to pay the medical costs for her subsequent yeast infection afterwards??

8. Sex Act: Role Playing
Why It Should Be Retired: If you wanted to date Little Red Riding Hood, you should have gone to the magical forest rather than the club to meet women. And what’s the deal with sexy nurses? Is there such a thing as a sexy hospital? No. Role playing is a sign that one of you wants to sleep with other people. When we look into the eyes of someone we’re sleeping with, we want to see them, not the eyes of a mentally-ill loonybird method actor.
Alternative Sex Act: Wear funny hats instead. We’ll put on this magician's top hat, you can wear the Native American feather headdress.

Oh, lighten the fuck up, Johnny. Sex is performance as much as it is intimate..and why the hell shouldn't partners freshen the mood a bit by playing fun and sexy roles on occasion?? And Native American headdresses aren't too common for regular folk these days.

9. Sex Act: Candle Wax
Why It Should Be Retired: Hot wax and nipples do not mix. For that matter, neither does any kind of open flame within a three-foot radius of male junk. We like emo Goth chicks as much as the next guy, and are not averse to a little nipple nibbling. But candles? Hot wax? Did we commit a crime? Can’t we just blare the Cure instead? Hot wax is to sex what stabbing your tongue with a fork is to dinner.
Alternative Sex Act: If a little pain is totally necessary, how about you let us decorate your body with band-aids. Then pull.

Dewd...if someone expert in candle play even brings the candle within three feet of your dick, she's probably doing it wrong. Candle wax may sting a little, but it's relatively harmless compared to other things. What a wimp.

And the finale:

10. Sex Act: Handjobs
Why It Should Be Retired: Unfortunately, when hooking up, we are not hiding from teachers underneath the bleachers. So give up the handjob, and let’s get down to some serious business. This is not a reflection on your patented technique—It’s just that we’re not in your parent’s basement, and it’s a little lazy too. While we’re talking about this, we’re going to cancel ye olde fingerbang too.
Alternative Sex Act: Penis in the vagina.

Oh, I get it....so even if a woman isn't in the mood to have your dick stuffed in her pussy every single damn time, that's too freakin' bad....we aren't for any stinkin' handplay. Yeah...with that attitude, unless you happen to have a harem and own two ships named Tits 1 and Tits 2, you probably won't even get P/V sex, either. Nice sexism there...you sure you were only kidding??

Me thinks that a trip to Gloria Brame's dungeon is long over due this whackoid. Or better yet, let him experience one session of Brittany Andrews...I'm sure that he will find a new respect for women's (and men's) sexual tastes.

Three Profiles In Sexual Courage: Shyla Stylez, Renegade Evolution, and...Elizabeth Wood?!?!?

[Yeah, it's been a while since I last posted here...and I do promise yet again that I will be posting here more often. Take that with the proverbial three grains of salt and a lemon shaker.]

There are a lot of words that we use these days for women who are upfront about their love of sex.

If we happen to be the immediate beneficiaries of their sexual generosity, we'll call them such names as: Girlfriend. Honey. Sweetheart. Baby. Darling Wife. Goddess.

If we are not, then the names get somewhat darker and more insulting: Tramp. Trollop. (Cock) Tease. Slut. Whore.

Either way, we tend to vision them as either objects of our deepest desires or figments of our worst nightmares.

What we tend not to vision them as, on the other hand, are as full human beings.

It is so easy these days to get caught up in the fantasy of the beautiful, glamorous slut goddess (or the nightmare meme of the beautiful Femme Fatale/Black Widow who mates with then kills her men for their money) and forget to see that beyond the 36DD rack, the round apple ass, the throbbing clit and the screams of orgasm (whether real or slightly simulated for show) there is an actual human being who eats, sleeps, works, and loves for a living, and who is plenty more than the sum of her lingerie or Hitachi Magic Wand or navel jewelry.

[And I'd say the same thing for the men in porn, too...they are more than the sum of their dicks. But, that's a seperate issue.]

It's even more vexing if you happen to be a woman who is not necessarily the Playboy/Vivid prototype: you are basically assumed not to even have a sexual lifestyle, or at least not to the same degree that a woman with a "perfect 10", 36-22-36 body is assumed to have just because that is the prototype that tends to inflate a guy's groin.

That's nothing against guys and girls who do get off on women with Barbie-doll like measurments (hell, most of the porn starlets I get off to are exactly like that, anyway), or men with six-pack abs and 8-inch schlongs.. But, in a culture that is both immersed in sexual imagery and still quite ignorant and in denial about sexual pleasure and sexual autonomy, it seems to be an act of political will and resistance for most women to attempt to express themselves as openly sexual beings.

You all know the risks involved: Misunderstanding men who either want them for themselves as either personal slaves and get-into-sex-club-free trophy dolls or demonize them if they are beyond their reach as whores and trollops or "teasers". Jealous women who see such "sexbots" as cosmic threats to take away their own men. Morality pushers who decry the "pornification" of America and demonize why they have to settle for "sloppy seconds" rather than the joy of "deflowering" the fresh, ripe ingenue for themselves. Radical feminists who pontificate about how such "cumdumpsters" are destroying "the sisterhood" by giving men the idea that they are freely available for sex, rather than bartering sex as a tool for security and wealth (mostly through marriage). The threat of rape, STI's, unintended pregnancy. The loss of employment if outed. The loss of reputation, the shaming and humiliation and silencing, even the loss of their children if their favored sexual outlet is revealed and discovered by the wrong person. And so on, and so forth.

And yet, despite all the odds and risks, there are women who are more than willing to go through all that crap and negotiate the minefield of societal disapproval of outward sexual assertiveness to discover themselves. For them, while the journey can be hazardous and the ride is filled with bumps and jolts...the end results and the pleasures entailed and lessons learned are more than worth the struggle.

I'm going to pay my respects to three such women. There are so many more whom I have saluted and will probably give more of this space to later on...but these three are on my mind right now, and I only have so much time to post.





Sex Heroine #1: Shyla Stylez (nee Amanda Freeland). As you can plainly see from her profile pic (from Penthouse) Shyla could be the prototypical glamour beauty...and as both a Playboy Playmant and a Penthouse Pet, she definitely fits the picture....right until the moment that she followed her clit into the world of hardcore porn and transformed herself into a bona fide slut nympho. Most of the projects she has done for various porn companies such as Brazzers, Reality Kings, Naughty America, and others video/Internet producers reflect her voracious sexual appetite as much as her inflated yet still quite lovely 36D pair of boobs.

As with the usual LA porn girl prototype, Shyla's on-screen/online persona is of a party girl who works very hard at what she does, is efficient and prompt in what (and who) she does, and generally loves being a horny, exhibitionist girl who is at peace with her profession and her life. She also seems to have a genuine mind and a generous heart about what she expects to get out of being a porn starlet; which is probably the biggest reason why her career has exploded out of sight this last year. (She is currently doing a complete overhaul of her website, which is expected to launch later this year; and she is currently on a feature dancing tour, to which readers of her blog and Twitter page can keep up to date.

What strikes me most about Shyla is that she is basically unapologetic about liking and wanting sex on her terms, and that she does feel so much at ease about her body that she is willing to show it off in so many public ways....often taking many risks in the process. One notorious clip she did with Brazzers has her going through the streets of downtown Los Angeles in a very skimpy sundress, flashing the photographer and even a few passers by along the way...culminating in an intense sex scene in the alley. It makes one wonder whether she's actually done something like that in the real world.



Heroine #2 may seem a bit more problematic at first sight, but if you happen to know Renegade Evolution as I have, you'll understand quickly why she is pretty damn high on the list.

Unlike Shyla Stylez, you won't find Ren Ev anywhere near a Brazzers or Naughty America box cover...for starters, she's 37 years old, and not neccessarily the prototypical porn starlet look. Then again, she's not even a pro starlet; she mostly does freelance porn work out of her home space near the Washington, DC area...and most of her favored work is closer to the hardest core of "hardcore gonzo" that is usually frowned upon by the more genteel classes of "feature" porn. Ren, you see, is into a much....shall we say, darker mode of sexuality than most; the rawer, more (cum) in your face, (dick) up your ass, "pound me until it hurts", "I wanna fuck you like an animal" style that reduces sex down to the rawest, most primal instincts. In short, Ren's a different kind of a slut god than Shyla (and the "god" gender is deliberate, since she is big on identifying herself with Roman emperors...hence the gloss of "God Emperor of Rome"), even if her libinal instincts are just as strong, if not possibly stronger, than most porn starlets.

Ren also has earned her sexual stripes by being a part-time paid escort who has done whoring on the side for personal pleasure and profit, and has become quite an activist for defending the humanity and profession of sex workers on her own behalf. Naturally, that combined with her particular tastes have gotten her in some hot disputes with people who don't share her vision of free sexuality. Her battles with a certain group of hostile radical antipornography/antiprostitiution feminists have become stuffs of Internet legend, and she gives back as much if not more than she has taken. Her defense of sex work and sex workers and her insistence on them being respected as human beings rather than dismissed as mindless sexbot freaks or weak damsels in distress needing rescue has earned her much accolades and many enemies as well...but she takes it all in stride and with the basic desire to level everyone with a machete and a loaded M-16 with endless aggro. (She is as big into online gaming and roleplay fantasy games as she is into sex, and she often uses her online space to riff on how female gamers are given the shaft when it comes to respect.

Still, Ren can certainly turn on the sexual fireworks like the best of 'em...and she does have that trigger finger horniness that the best of sluts thrive on. Her biggest hope for the future: bigger boobs to further trap the men. As in...FF-size.




My third and final courageous sex goddess is probably the strangest candidate of all, because she is no porn starlet or sex worker, or even a professional or amateur model. In fact, the closest that Elizabeth Wood has come to practicing sex modeling is as a volunteer for a fundraising calendar of New York City's more reknowned sex bloggers to raise money for the sex worker organization Sex Work Awareness.

And yet, Elizabeth Wood may represent in her own way the most courageous of all these women in that as a "civilian", she has done more to take risks to her career and to herself to develop herself as a sexual person....as much intellectually an spiritually as physically.

Elizabeth is, in her day job, an assistant professor of sociology at Nassau Community College in New York; but her main passion has been social and political activism and progressive political movement building through personal transformation. Her basic approach to activism is basically reduced to a saying that I am fond of: Always set your boundaries clearly so that people will respect them..and then challenge them yourself. As one of the founders and main contributors of the blog Sex In The Public Square, she carries that approach over to her teachings and writings about sexuality, always encouraging her readers and fellow/sister contributors to push the envelope and challenge the prevailing sexual moralities and assumptions.

And she is willing to apply those principles to her own personal life as well....though not nearly as publically as professional porn starlets or activist sex workers do. She has told many stories about how she has made the effort to liberate herself sexually doing everything from skinny dipping in a public pool to dabbling into BDSM and exhibitionism as a means of personal experimentation and putting her sex-positive beliefs into practice.

None of this has come without controversy, though...in fact, this week, a prominent antiporn/antiprostitution activist publically attempted to use Elizabeth's own history against her in the debate over proposed legislation in Rhode Island that would have banned prostitution completely in that state. (Elizabeth had signed onto a letter to the legislators opposing the legislation on principled grounds.) The response defending Elizabeth's right to free speech against such slander has been swift and overwhelming (for the sake of disclosure, I have my own defense posted at my other blog, you can find it here.)

Nevertheless, Elizabeth has remained strong about her principles of defending sexual speech and expression as well as her own right of self discovery..while focusing her efforts on the task at hand. This is especially encouraging, considering the pressures that she must face to either conform to the usual social mores or risk losing her reputation. That courage makes her almost as sexy as an activist porn starlet..but not in the usual fashion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I have frequently posted before, these are only three examples of women displaying sexual courage...there are plenty others, but these three will suffice for now.

"Sex-Positive" Elitism And The Latest HIV/Porn Panic

A lot of people think that sexual conformity only exists among the folks of the Religious Right and of a particular strain of "radical" feminism who condemns pornography and other forms of sexual expression as innately "anti-woman".

And, most certainly, it does.

What is less noticed, though, is a related but somewhat different variation of sexual conformist efforts to constrain sexual expression to fit a narrow political agenda that comes from an unexpected source: namely, those promoting themselves to be "sex positive" and promoting the beauty of sex....as long as it's on their narrow terms and conditions.

This kind of "sex positive" elitism is usually masked because of the far more prevalent rhetoric of the Right about using direct government censorship and behavior modification to impose their narrow repressive views on the masses. The former tends to allow for a far more expansive tent of acceptable sexual behavior that is approved, and tends to use more paternalistic (or maternalistic) language to justify their set conditions, plus they tend to use more flowing rhetoric to label their cherished and more preferred sexual practices.

However....all of that doesn't prevent those who promote this "sex positive elitist" view from coming down hard like a ton of bricks on anyone who might not agree with their professed ideas with "You're doing it WRONG!!!"

And on some occasion, the dark side of such elitism can be unmasked and show its fangs at non-conformers with cataclysmic effects.

As is with this latest kerfuffle involving the most recent porn sex panic now ongoing.

When first the porn gossip site Lukeisback.com (formerly operated by gossiper Luke Ford) and then the Los Angeles Times reported that a (still unnamed) female porn performer was confirmed to be infected with the HIV/AIDS virus last week, and that there was a possibility of more transmissions, it set off a firestorm over the degree of protection from STD's that performers in porn have, and whether the existing system of self-regulation, frequent testing, and peer pressure is adequate or whether stronger methods and even government intervention to impose even more astringent protections are warrented.

At the center of the controversy is Dr. Sharon Mitchell, former porn starlet herself and founder and chief executive of the Adult In Medical (AIM) Health Care Foundation, which serves as the principal organization involving testing of performers for HIV/AIDS and other STD's.

Following a previous HIV "outbreak" that took place in 2004 in which three XXX performers, including Darren James and Lara Roxx, were infected with the virus, the ensuing firestorm exploded to the point that regulatory agencies such as the California state branch of the Occupancy Health and Safety Administration (Cal-OSHA), some AIDS prevention groups, and even some California political officials were calling for more direct government intervention in the industry.....including requiring porn shoots to regulated in the same way as businesses handling hazardous bodily fluids and mandating severe conditions and protective procedures, and requiring mandatory usage of condoms on all productions, regardless of performer preference. Due to both lobbying from the major porn production companies and testimonials from porn performers opposing the proposed regulations as overkill and ineffective and a violation of personal choice, the regulations never made it pass the political process at that time...though there were firey hearings in the California Assembly where both sides of the debate got to expound on their views.

This most recent "outbreak" is still not totally resolved as of today, but based on the latest information, it seems to have been effectively contained to that one performer, who is described to be in her 40's and who had only primary contact since being tested with one other performer and her boyfriend, with secondary contact limited to six others whom have so far tested negative.

Unfortunately, that hasn't prevented the barrage of criticism that has besieged Dr. Mitchell and AIM from various circles and from those whom believe that their support of a tougher and more restrictive policy regarding porn protrayal of sex has been justified and vindicated.

At first, it seemed that most of the critics were those performers and producers from within the industry, as well as a few "alt.porn" gadflies like Tony Comstock whom have been very critical of AIM's practices from the very beginning, and some of whom have had personal and political vendettas against AIM from the 2004 "outbreak".

But then, the Cal-OSHA authorities decided to take their case directly to the public, in the form of an article that was published to the LA Times depicting the latest breach as a "cover-up" from AIM to mask the "reality" of how not protected porn performers are. The article quoted freely activists supporting the tougher regulations, such as LA medical expert Dr. Johnathan Fielding, Cal-OSHA spokesperson Dean Fryer, and AIDS Healthcare Foundation founder/president Michael Weinstein, in saying that the latest outbreak justified their worst fear that the existing system is woefully inadequate, and that the industry is incapable of self-regulation such that government intervention is warrented to save lives. In particular emphasis, they quoted the existing "condom optional" rule as the main weakness in the protective barrier of the present system, and they repeated their call for a industry-wide imposition of a "condom only" policy across the board, imposed by government fiat if neccessary.

And that prompted an even bigger eruption from the general sex-positive blogosphere community, some of which has been long since critical of the porn industry for not using its power to promote "safe sex" guidelines. From Good Vibrations to Carnal Nation to Feministing and all in between, there have been calls in support of the Cal-OSHA authorities for imposing mandatory condom usage as a means of sex education and "sex positive" principles, and to protect performers livelihoods from a rapicious industry bent on exploitation. Support also comes from what is being called the "alt.porn" community of sexual rebels who see themselves as providing a progressive alternative to the "all gonzo"/"circus sex" mentality that has been said to have produced the trend towards double penetration, double anals, anal sex, and all other forms of what they see as dangerous antics being promoted in the "mainstream" explicit sexual media.

While I understand all those criticisms and even share them to an extent, and I do believe most of them to be in the best of intentions, I have to strongly disagree and dissent on this one.

Most of my dissent is based on a long and detailed rebuttal by Ernest Greene (aka Ira Levine), who was one of the founders with Dr. Mitchell of AIM, and a long-time member of the ruling executive committee there (along with his wife and partner, porn legend/sexual rights activist Nina Hartley), which was posted to the Blog of Pro-Porn Activism yesterday. Ernest also happens to be a producer of mostly BDSM videos, as well as the editor and sometime editorialist of TABOO magazine, which is published by Larry Flynt Productions. (Disclosure alert: I am a long time commentator at BPPA as well, and everyone probably knows my feelings about Nina, as well as my deep respect for Ernest, our occasional disagreements to the contrary. So, my own biases are as up front as possible, too.)

First, Ernest clears up the present condition for the parties directly involved:

The performer and her two primary contacts since June 4 (one a male performer, the other her boyfriend) were immediately notified and quarantined, as were six secondary partners of her two primary contacts.

As of that point, the prospect of contagion from the female performer who tested HIV+ to the rest of the porn talent pool and the surrounding population was contained and remains so now.

Both her primary contacts and their secondary contacts have been tested and are HIV- as of now. They will be retested twice during the coming month and if those tests are also negative, which is highly probable given the nature of the contacts (vaginal intercourse without internal ejaculation and female to female exposure), the quarantine will be lifted and those performers will be able to return to work at no unusual risk to their partners.

In short, this single, isolated case was caught early, notification was given promptly, including to governmental public health agencies mandated by law for notification of new HIV infections, and the infected performer has already been referred for treatment. She’s out of the business. Her few contacts are HIV- and likely to remain so, but will not be working until that is certain.

In other words: out of all that, only one confirmed case of infection, which was quarantined and handled quickly and effectively, so far. A tragedy for her, yes, and everyone should give her thoughts and prayers...but hardly worth inciting a panic.

Indeed, an actual improvement over the 2004 outbreak, according to Ernest:

In no way does this case resemble the situation in 2004, which involved a perfect storm of highly active, long-term members of the performing community, particularly high-risk sex practices (double-anal penetrations and internal ejaculations) on multiple sets and a much larger group of primary and secondary contacts throughout an entire month-long testing cycle. There was clear evidence of performer-to-performer HIV infection in the 2004 episode. There is no such evidence in the present instance and little chance any will emerge.

As to the claim by Dr. Johnathan Fielding of the LA Health Care office regarding the "16 known cases of HIV/AIDS infection" within the porn industry that AIM is alleged to be "covering up": well, there is this:

Fielding is a long-time adversary of AIM’s whose department has a history of harassing and defaming the organization dating to well before the 2004 cases. Fielding’s hirelings have attempted to obtain confidential medical records of AIM’s clients, made threatening calls to AIM clients in efforts to intimidate them into giving information his department has no legal right to collect and publicly accused AIM of “stonewalling” his department’s attempts to investigate STI transmissions in the industry, though he knows as well as we do that California law is extremely specific regarding what we must report to government agencies and what we are forbidden to report to anyone. Members of Fielding’s staff have heckled AIM board members, myself included, from the floor at public forums unrelated to his agency’s mission and Fielding himself has lied to my face in his office in front of two other AIM board members and two members of his own staff regarding his intended recommendations to the state legislature prior to the investigative hearing into the 2004 cases.

But none of Fielding’s cynical machinations sinks to the level of his false assertion, trumpeted by The [LA} Times, that AIM has “concealed” an additional 16 HIV infections in the industry since 2004. In fact, eleven of those cases involved male performers in gay porn who are not part of AIM’s client base and who do not test with AIM and four were private citizens not affiliated with porn who sought testing at AIM for personal reasons. As required by law, all HIV infections detected by AIM were reported to Fielding’s department, which is how he comes to know about them, but were not disclosed to AIM’s heterosexual porn industry clients because they did not involve het porn in any way. And yet The Times reported this deliberate and heinous distortion of the truth under the blaring headline: “More Porn HIV Cases Disclosed.” In point of fact, there is no way AIM, Fielding or anyone else can know that the cases involving the gay performers were porn-related, as AIM does not monitor that population. But then again, The Times also characterizes mainstream porn as a $12 billion dollar a year industry, an unsourced figure frequently repeated in mainstream media and universally scorned as a ridiculous exaggeration by industry insiders.

Of course, Fielding has long been gunning for AIM to be placed under his control for a long time, so this might just be more political showboating on his part using the guise of "protection" to cover his own ass.

Then there are the two other major proponents of government-imposed mandatory condom usage:

Meanwhile, Cal-OSHA’s Fryer alleges in the same story that “AIM Healthcare has never been cooperative with us and our investigations,” because AIM has obeyed the law and refused to give out client information to agencies not entitled to said information.

And then there’s AHF’s Weinstein, who has characterized the porn industry overall as “a poster-child for heterosexual HIV transmission” and proclaimed that: “This industry screams for regulation. Cal-OSHA needs to require condoms be used in any film. Yesterday.” Weinstein has organized picketing in front of Larry Flynt’s offices to demand that the straight porn industry adopt mandatory condom use and has refused to meet with industry representatives to discuss the reasoning behind the current standards. He is what is colloquially known as a hothead.

All these individuals, and a few converts they’ve made at the margins of the industry, support a truly mad plan by Fielding’s deputy Dr. Peter Kerndt to implement state-legislated regulations requiring condom use throughout the industry that would make it illegal to distribute sexually explicit materials created without the use of condoms, even though Kerndt himself admits that digital post production effects could theoretically render it impossible to determine after the fact whether condoms were used or not.

Considering that most porn products are not made in porn studios (or even in California), how such a law can be enforced without the most intrusive and invasive techniques akin to raiding porn shoots is pretty much doubtful.

But if even those who advocate this understand the ineffectiveness of such regulation, then why propose it in the first place?? Ernest gives the game away here:

If these individuals were mainly concerned with the health and safety of performers, their views might at least be worth a second hearing, and their methods, while still questionable, would at least be well meant if misguided.

But their real objective has nothing to do with performer safety and everything to do with porn content, which they regard as setting a bad example to viewers following safer sex precautions in the viewers’ private lives. Kerndt makes his priorities crystal clear in his 2007 jeremiad published by the Public Library of Science:

“The portrayal of unsafe sex in adult films may also influence viewer behavior. In the same way that images of smoking in films romanticize tobacco use, viewers of these adult films may idealize unprotected sex. The increasingly high-risk sexual behavior viewed by large audiences on television and the Internet could decrease condom use. Requiring condoms may influence viewers to see them as normative or even sexually appealing, and devalue unsafe sex. With the growing accessibility of adult film to mainstream America, portrayals of condom use onscreen could increase condom use among viewers, thereby promoting public health.”

This is basically Weinstein’s line as well. They want to empower the state to punish porn producers for not requiring condom use because they regard the depiction of sex without barrier protections as unhealthy viewing for the audience.

Unfortunately, in the service of that goal, they’re quite prepared to put at risk the performers they claim to be protecting.

In other words, this is merely the "liberal" equivalent of the typical right-wing approach at behavior modification through government censorship, albeit justified with the "good intentions" of protecting performer safety...but mostly done to control the message to the public. Backdoor censorship and abolition, to be sure.

But while the right-winger and fundie would just simply censor or eliminate sexual expression outright as "sin" and "moral corruption" and "anti-God, anti-family, and anti-American", the more enlightened, "liberal", even "sex positive" commisar would justify their form of censorship under the notion of saving humanity, protecting women and children, even saving sex, from the corrosive and negative byproducts and aftereffects of dangerous sex practices.

It is is such a way that even the more prominent "sex positive" activists can become taken in and support such legislation under the notion of "protection".

Take, for instance, Audacia Ray of Waking Vixen, who posted a guest blog piece for Feministing supporting the call for mandatory condom usage using mostly the same rhetorical excesses and cooked-up information used by Fielding, Weinstein, and Freyer:

With the reports of another incidence of HIV infection coming out of porn valley this week, the HIV infection count in the straight business has reached 22 cases since 2004. So what's going on? The straight porn industry regards testing as prevention - and while testing and knowledge of your partners' status is certainly part of a risk reduction strategy, testing is not prevention. Porn production companies argue that the appearance of condoms in porn reduces the fantasy for the viewer, and as a result condom mandatory videos sell fewer units. Yep: sales are more important than sexual health. Both male and female porn performers are disempowered to demand condom usage because most companies actively discourage condoms (even though the option to use condoms is often written into their model release or contract). The reality is that unless the performer is a major star and has leverage or produces his or her own films, performing without condoms is a sure way to get booked frequently and work a lot. Condom mandatory performers work less and get paid less.

Earlier in the piece, Audacia quoted some of the "safer sex" practices of the gay male sex media community, as if they should be the foundation for the "straight" industry to follow.

[...] A stunning majority of straight porn companies do not require condoms and actively discourage their use - in the business this is called "condom optional" which is euphemistic for "you either perform without a condom or you don't perform for this company." The gay porn industry has slightly different standards than the straight porn business. Gay porn companies do not require testing, with the idea that it is an invasion of privacy and HIV shouldn't prevent people from working/having sex, but the more reputable companies require condom use. The Gay Video News Awards (GayVN) will not consider a film for an award if there is "barebacking" (sex without a condom) in it.

Problem is, Dacia seems to have missed the basic fact that there is more than a slight difference between the straight and gay porn industries, as Ernest made clear:

But wait a minute, didn’t I say that gay porn is made without testing but with condoms instead? Why wouldn’t that work in straight porn as well?

In part, because it doesn’t really work in gay porn. Though condom use has become less of an absolute in gay porn, it has been the standard for 20 years, during which time, unlike in straight porn, a number of performers have died of AIDS. This is most likely a result of imprudent behavior in their personal lives rather than on the set, but it points to an important difference between the composition of gay and straight talent pools.

An unspoken by generally accepted truth in gay porn is that many performers are already HIV+ when they enter the industry. Producers and directors make quiet but diligent efforts to pair them only with other already-infected partners, but the fact remains that testing is regarded as pointless in gay porn because, as one of the best known gay directors told me privately, “it’s just assumed that all of our talent is or will be infected and that the use of barriers is a secondary precaution.”

Our model in straight porn is to try and keep the talent pool disease free rather than simply accept the permanent presence of infected performers as a necessary work-around. If you visit the web site that lists all the porn performers who have died during the past twenty years, you’ll find that the overwhelming majority of them were gay male players who died of AIDS. The risk of a similar situation in straight porn is what Fielding, Kerndt, Weinstein, et al would subject us to in the interest of setting a better example for our audiences.

And indeed, the fear (or in some cases, hidden hope) of a major outbreak is the principal motivation behind both the criticisms of Sharon Mitchell and AIM's program and the call for mandatory condom usage as a panacea to protect performers and promote "safer" practices. Tony Comstock, indie adult film producer and "alt.porn" guru, made it perfectly clear in his latest diatribe at his company's blog personally attacking Mitchell and AIM and the rest of "the porn industry":

In this latest incidence of HIV in the AIM talent pool, the individual in question went 37 days between tests. Due to the latency inherent in the testing, she may have been HIV positive for as long as 45 day or more before her infection was detected. If this infection had occurred in a male performer there almost certainly would have been secondary infection(s).

But more than that, sooner or later an HIV infection is going to cross from second generation to third generation, and instead of 3-5 on-set transmissions, there are going to be 20-30. This day is coming; it’s a statistical certainty.

To that, and to the general slandering of Sharon Mitchell, Ernest responded thusly (via a comment here):

And as for Tony Comstock, with whom I have already gone multiple rounds on this subject, way down in his post, after all the personal attacks on Sharon Mitchell and the heinous comparison of AIM to a drug dealer, he gets down to the same bottom line as Dr. Kerndt:

"Pornography is made in a way that profoundly contradicts the basic safer-sex message and respect for responsible personal choice that is supposed to lie at the heart of sex-positive philosophy. I am profoundly disappointed."

For him, it's about the message. For me, it's about the best way to protect performers. Those intentions sometimes conflict, and when they do, I side with what has proven effective at protecting performers, not with abstract issues regarding "messages."

And if you're reading this, Tony, I have never in 25 years asked a performer to do anything on set that he or she wouldn't have done off set.

The suggetion that testing is useless and that repeatedly tested performers are at the same risk in multiple sexual encounters as the general public is risible, as any cub reporter could quickly establish.

Equally indefensible is the claim that a generalized outbreak of HIV in the het industry is inevitable under the current protocols.

If such a thing were likely, would it not have happened by now after a decade of relying on the safeguards in place during that time?

I'm well aware of your statistical modeling of the situation on the ground here, and find it theoretically flawed and fundamentally baseless, as I said during our last go-round on the subject.

Make your own movies your own way. I'd be the last to challenge your right to do so. But you're wasting your time attempting to persuade the rest of us to to follow your lead for reasons we find unconvincing.

And I think the sex-postive community is more attuned to the voices of performers than to your jeremiads in contradiction of performers' oft-stated preference for a voluntary system based on individual choice and responsibility.

It really does sound to me like there is a hidden agenda here....as if Comstock and those on the "safer sex" side who want to mandate condom usage really do want to wipe out the mainstream porn industry for all of its supposed sins (racism, mistreatment of performers, low pay, misogyny.

And while I do acknowledge and respect Audacia's concerns about promoting safety and protecting the performers, and do think that she is coming from a good place in her heart, I have to say that it is kind of elitist for people who call themselves "sex positive" and "pro sex" and who label themselves as progressives to basically flip off the concerns of active performers about regulations regarding their own bodies. It's as if they are all for sexual liberation as long as they control what is considered as liberating...but cannot understand that not everyone will see their particular way as the only way of liberation.

That is the thing that really, really bothers me about all this controversy.....that some advocates who would would go to the wall to condemn the Right for imposing a narrow concept of sexuality have no problems doing a small-scale version of the very same thing to those whose sexual practices don't quite fit their hierarchies.

Actually, what really bothers me is how much those who are pushing condom-only are so willing to blow off and dismiss active real sex performers who state their opposition to having these practices imposed on them without their approval and say so...as if the advantage of "public safety" should overwhelm any objections of personal comfort and practicality. Simply saying that "Well, they are being paid or silenced by the industry bigwigs who wouldn't profit so much by imposing condom-only!!!" just isn't good enough; and merely dismissing them with a wave of the hand and a stern "Oh, shut up and wrap up, it's for your own good!!!" just isn't enough.

In the essay cited, Ernest quotes liberally from testimony that Nina Hartley gave to the California State Assembly in 2004 regarding some of the hazards of condom usage during porn shoots, and how it is worlds different from condom usage in the civilian world.

Our model in straight porn is to try and keep the talent pool disease free rather than simply accept the permanent presence of infected performers as a necessary work-around. If you visit the web site that lists all the porn performers who have died during the past twenty years, you’ll find that the overwhelming majority of them were gay male players who died of AIDS. The risk of a similar situation in straight porn is what Fielding, Kerndt, Weinstein, et al would subject us to in the interest of setting a better example for our audiences.

Thanks but no thanks to that noble sacrifice. For uninfected female performers, not only are condoms in the absence of testing a more dangerous approach than bare-backing with tested performers, it actually puts them at greater risk. To understand why, it’s necessary to recognize that sex on camera is quite different from sex in private.

As a director, I allow two and a half hours to shoot a typical boy-girl sex scene. That’s over two hours of intercourse in various positions with constant stops and starts during which male performer’s erections rise and fall, condoms frequently tear or unravel and the degree of latex abrasion on the internal membranes of female performers’ vaginas lead to micro-abrasions that make them more vulnerable to all kinds of STIs. Most condom-only female performers eventually abandon condom use, not under pressure from producers, but rather because of the constant rawness and end-on-end bacterial infections produced by countless hours of latex drag.

Condoms are fine for ordinary folks having a quick bang, but they’re not suited to effective use in porn. I know whereof I speak because I refuse to shoot as a director for any company that won’t allow performers to use condoms if they wish and have probably shot more condom footage than any straight porn director alive. I began doing so way back in 1993, when all we had was the elisa test, which though still regarded as the so-called gold standard outside of porn because its antibody detection screening is virtually never wrong when it comes to detecting active HIV cases (if you’ve got HIV antibodies in your bloodstream, you’ve got HIV, no doubt about it), may not detect a case for as long as six months, while the PCR-DNA test has a window period no longer than two weeks. That’s still too long, and I would personally prefer twice-monthly testing to reduce the false-negative results that contributed to the situation in 2004. But it’s a lot safer than a six-month interval during which a newly infected person would be at his or her most contagious, having the highest viral load because antibodies had not yet begun to fight the progression of the disease process. From having shot so much condom footage, I would estimate the condom failure rate at about 15% in any given encounter.

So, if we give up universal testing in favor mandatory condoms, what we would have is a large group of internally compromised female performers having sex with a number of men whose HIV status would be unknown.

I ask anyone reading this who is HIV- if he or she would knowingly have penetrative intercourse with someone who they knew for a fact was HIV+, condom or no condom. I’m betting the honest answer for the overwhelming majority of readers would be “no way.” That is just plain common sense.

The choice is pretty simple and pretty stark: condoms or testing. It is legally impossible to have both. At the investigative hearings in 2004, lawyers for the ACLU made it clear that numerous challenges to the anti-discrimination laws sought by specific professions to weed out HIV+ potential employees were successfully resisted in court challenges and that the ACLU would vigorously resist any attempt to gain such a waiver for the porn industry.

I repeat: testing or condoms: that is the choice. If you’re HIV-, it’s pretty much a no-brainer.

Personally, I'd rather trust the performers who do the dirty deed than some outsider looking in...but that's only me.

And Speaking of Porn Starlets On A Roll...What's That Babe Expansion Going On At The VNA???

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.