I was inspired to reply to a fantastic discussion that was held here at the beginning of the year.
I'm a middle aged, liberal, feminist, longstanding consumer of porn.
(1) Some porn does objectify women. That is not a bad thing. Objectification is only bad when it is inappropriate- for example, when you see your babysitter or your doctor or your secretary primarily as a sex object, or when you have difficulty seeing your girlfriend or your wife as anything other than a sex object. The problem is not objectification, but rigidly inapropriate objectification. Most of you objectify your plumber, seeing him only as a faucet-fixer. I doubt he cares; your (nonsexual) objectification is likely context-appropriate.
(2) Caitlin Hall's article is quite a good one. It is superficial in content and light-humoured in tone, though, and the readers here seem to be taking it *much* too seriously. Case in point: "There are two kinds of women- those who hate porn, and those who won't admit to watching it." C'mon, folks, that's clearly a joke!! It's wasn't a serious classification of women!
(3) Prof. Sun's article, taken at face value, does raise crucial concerns that are important with respect to the question of misogynist pornography, the discussion of race relations, and other subjects where free speech issues intersect with real social concerns. She is right; we cannot let free speech concerns prevent us from making appropriate criticisims of the frighteningly hostile, misogynistic portrayals that can easily be seen within pornography.
(4) Prof. Sun does, however, seem to overgeneralise and subtly imply that such hostile portrayals are fundamentally representative of pornography as a whole. This is reminiscent of more overt claims made by Dworkin, MacKinnon et al years ago as part of a broad censorship movement that still is hair-raising for many who remember it. Such implications must be confronted. Full-contact underground fighting tournaments have no particular implication for the morality of touch football, and BangBus- as much as I personally dislike it- has no particular implications for the span of pornography as an overall genre.
(5) Even misogynistic portrayals have their place. There are some men and women who are aroused by bondage, domination, and humiliation; I see no reason to deny them their porn.
(6) Pornography, as an overall genre, makes a lousy sex education tool(*). But the same is true of any entertainment medium. I pity the fool who "learns" martial arts from movies, without the benefit of any offscreen guidance and training. Or the idiot who "learns" about high-speed driving from action movies, and tries to put that into practise; his next of kin will soon be paying an undertaker.
(7) Prof. Sun can be seen to be judging pornography by special rules. Nonpornographic television, movies, and books are not held to account for the fate of those who use them inappropriately as instructionals. Why the special rules for pornography? My suspicion- and this cannot be a certainty- is that she is indeed inappropriately hostile to pornography, as Dworkin et al were. That is, perhaps, the reason for her special treatment of pornography.
(8) Prof. Sun and I agree that there are real issues to be addressed with respect to misogyny in porn. I, however, will do what she did not: I will also address the solution to the problem. The solution is not to be found in sniping and hedging around censorship; the solution is to be found in real education of those at risk, by those who know better. The BDSM community is a shining example in one sense; BDSM themes can lure some into risky situations, and the BDSM community has done an excellent job of highlighting and spreading the phrase "safe, sane and consensual" Those who love porn have a responsibility to emphasise the differences between arousing onscreen portrayals and safe/ healthy offscreen behavior, and to emphasise the safe uses of porn. This is already happening, of course; but it needs to happen more. The solution lies in vigorous education- but education that is acceptable to the standards of the community it serves. That's a basic public health education principle.
(9) In the end, I suspect that Prof. Sun and I frame the problem differently; she seems to feel that misogynistic porn essentially does the watcher a disservice when they are lured into patterns of thought and behavior that are unhealthy. I disagree; I rather feel that we, as a society, fail those watchers because we did not equip them with the tools to put that porn in an appropriate context. Well-raised, well-educated young men don't watch "BangBus" and come away with the impression that it portrays acceptable offscreen behavior.
(*) Particular, chosen examples within the genre may make good instructional tools or examples, certainly. But randomly chosen specimens from any entertainment genre are rarely good instructionals in the absence of external guidance or previous knowledge.
Thanks again for the food for thought, folks. Comments are welcome!
I've corresponded with Prof Sun at some length and am sorry to report she is neither very bright or very interesting.She is, however, clever in one respect.
She's developed for herself an interesting little nitch making not for profit funded "educational" films composed almost entirely of appropriated footage; footage that is used without the permission of, or compensation of the copyright holder, under the figleaf of "fair use". In fact, the very first things she wrote when we corresponded was "would you appear on camera", and "would you send me some examples of your work".
Being in no hurry to have my work used without my permission or my likeness used against me, I declined.
TonyC is absolutely right about Chyng Sun. She is not a serious-minded researcher approaching this subject with an open mind and a real concern for the more complex issues involved.
She is, in fact, an anti-porn feminist polemicist in league with other wannabe leftie smut-busters, including Robert Jensen and Stan Goff, hoping to get attention (and turn a buck or two from agit-prop "documentaries" and lecture gigs) by counter-attacking those liberals and feminists she feels have betrayed the cause by embracing sexual liberartianism.
I was interviewed for the professor's so-called doc in Vegas last year and knew what her agenda was from the first leading, rhetorical question. I was hardly surprised to read her subsequent anti-porn blast on AlterNet and to see her featured, along with Jensen at the recent Captive Daughters Conference devoted to the evil effects of porn on women, children men and, presumably, household pets a few weeks later.
If you care to know more about Chyng Sun's real motives, and the retrogressive ideas she has resurrected from the Andrea Dworkin era, you might want to check out my spouse Nina Hartley's rebuttal on left-perspective site CounterPunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/hartley02022005.html
Former Green Beret Stan Goff, now retired from spear-carrying for U.S. imperialism and trying to kick-start some kind of career as an anti-war activist, returned fire on Nina via an anti-porn site pushing a book to which he is a contributor. He also went on the air at KPFK to bash her with the help of another well-known porn-hater, Ann Simonton, back in August. Nina's repeated requests for airtime to reply have been ignored by KPFK's management.
If you can stomach it, you can read the whole miserable saga at Nina.com:
http://nina.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2664
Clearly, a new effort is underway by a certain retro-feminist faction to undo the work of people like Nina, Tristan Taormino, Carly Milne, Violet Blue, Joanna Angel, Carol Queen and other pro-sex feminists who have defended porn's right to exist and women's right to enjoy it, participate in it and try to shape it to their own sensibilities.
These new-wave bluenoses are blatantly taking advantage of a conservative political climate to get media attention, all the while declaring loudly that they make no common cause with James Dobson, Sam Brownback, Alberto Gonzales and the CWA, when they clearly share the same ultimate objective, which is to create as hostile an atmosphere toward porn as possible.
As to the concerns raised by the article that started this thread, whatever validity they might have is undermined by the utter mendaciousnes of the so-called research used to support them. This is just more smut-bashing, cross-dressed in progressive drag.
"As to the concerns raised by the article that started this thread, whatever validity they might have is undermined by the utter mendaciousnes of the so-called research used to support them. This is just more smut-bashing, cross-dressed in progressive drag."
Yes, it's too bad that these valid concerns are not ever seriously addressed by any of the prominent spokespeople & "authorities" within the industry; perhaps then the industry would not be quite the sitting duck it is for such attacks.
Seems to me that the situation bears a few resemblences to the overall political situation in this country, where the collapse of the Democratic party into timid, moribund hackdom provided no small assistance to the far-right coup that took place in our federal government six years ago.
If this adminstration is losing popularity & power now, I would say it's only because they're tripping over their own shoes, not because of any intelligent or concentrated effort by the politicians in power who supposedly represent an alternative & opposing set of values & beliefs to do anything but protect & enrich their own careers.
Me, I've learned over the long haul to question the rhetoric of anybody who makes their buck by claiming they're "doing the good work for us all." Such rationalizations tend to be transparent no matter what the issue or political affiliation.
"Well-raised, well-educated young men don't watch "BangBus" and come away with the impression that it portrays acceptable offscreen behavior."
Oh, please. Charles Haidl & his privileged young cohorts were just checked into their new digs, courtesy of the state, for failing to discern the difference between Bangbus & what was appropriate to do to a fellow high school student they got drunk & videotaped while they gang-banged & physically abused her while she was in a semi-comatose state. & they're just the ones who got caught.
"BangBus- as much as I personally dislike it- has no particular implications for the span of pornography as an overall genre."
Anyone without an agenda who has actually paid attention to the evolution of American pornography over the last several years -- whether they're in favor of that evolution or not -- realizes this is a fundamentally incorrect statement. WIshing something is so does not make it so.
Are men not also objectified? They are meat on a stick, wanted only for the size of the stick and the size of their load (sometimes). They are breathing props that are the source of the objectionable HMAs.
I'll take that point seriously when it becomes popular for hetero porn scenes to include the guys getting conned into having sex, strangled, have toxic genetic materials ejaculated into their eyes & stretched-out anuses, & laughed at & called names while the girls high-five each other. LOL
At the risk of going all "San Francisco" on you, DAC, here are some facts:
There is no evidence that Haidl watched Bangbus. And since that series occurs on a bus - duh! - Haidl's choice of venue for his alleged misdeeds shows he was not doing any kind of copycat.
Sharon Mitchell testified that the female in question was not semi-comatose. She was seen brushing back her own hair unassisted several times. Mitch's testimony was backed by another tape viewer who testified to the actual number of times that occurred - 13.
That's why the jury did not convict Haidl of the most serious charges in the first trial.
Max Hardcore, Robert Black and Co. have been challenged from inside the industry loudly - going all the way back to when Veronica Hart protested AVN giving one of them a major award.
Nobody outside the industry gives a shit about its level of self-criticism. The same folks who want to exterminate porn are unmoved by self-criticism anymore than, say, the President of Iran would be unmoved from his call for Israel's destruction despite the constant publicity given to self-criticism within Israel over its policies toward the Palestinians.
Anyone who makes sexually explicit material - and that includes you, DAC - is a "sitting duck" for such attacks.
You cant see 'em, but her boobs are lovely. 182 Posts 11/05
Posted - Nov 17 2005 : 11:58AM
I might be way off but dosent the main reason for porn beeing loathed have its roots in the comparatively strong christian traditional heritage in the US?
There is truth in this statement, yes, it is why the US tends to be so bipolar when it comes to sex, gender roles, porn and so on. We're still a young country, compared to many others, and thus are still trying to define ourselves away from our forefather's religion and morals..
"There is no evidence that Haidl watched Bangbus. And since that series occurs on a bus - duh! - Haidl's choice of venue for his alleged misdeeds shows he was not doing any kind of copycat."
Sharon Mitchell testified that the female in question was not semi-comatose. She was seen brushing back her own hair unassisted several times. Mitch's testimony was backed by another tape viewer who testified to the actual number of times that occurred - 13.
That's why the jury did not convict Haidl of the most serious charges in the first trial."
though the fallacies here are painfully obvious -- my point is that Bangbus is hardly the black sheep of porn. It's merely a convenient example for a mysogynist gangbang mentality that has taken over a huge amount of market. Whether or not the boyz watched Bangbus specifically was not my point -- though still, just because they raped the girl in Daddy's garage & didn't go out & rent a bus to do it on they were not inspired by "Bangbus" or its ilk is so specious an argument I have to shoot that "Duh" right back at you, Sheldon.
& for the record, Sharon Mitchell's testimony was not allowed by the judge, & was never heard by the jury. That's all I'll say about that particular situation.
And as for "Miscreants," it's a classic, much more so than anything VCA managed to put out during that era, & a rewatching of it now will shock the viewer simply in regards to how good & nuanced a piece of pornographic moviemaking it is, considering how far south Rob's work would subsequently go.
I happen to think Veronica Hart's complaint about Rob's awards that year just might have something to do with her company not getting its expected awards -- considering how circa 1998, she told British writer David Flint in the book "Babylon Blue" that the top AVN awards are "basically a contest between VCA and Vivid."
Finally, considering that good ol' three-prong test for obscenity includes socially redeeming value/artistic value, I feel reasonably confident that my own work is not quite as high on any potential government hit list as "Pink Eye," "Gang Bang Auditions," "300-man creampie," etc. Not bulletproof, but hardly the material for an easy prosecution, especially considering my published body of writing with which to contextualize my work. Notice that when Extreme was busted, they didn't go after any Zupko movies .... for obvious reasons to anyone familiar with what legally constitutes obscenity.
I've made my contribution to this discussion; now I must get back to the business of making porn. See ya'll on the next thread!
Sharon Mitchell's testimony may not have been heard by the jury, but the man who testified who corroborated her testimony WAS heard by the jury.
The industry's fanbase is not 'outside' the industry in an important sense. Fans who post here and regular customers in general feed the industry by buying its product.
Regardless of whether Veronica Hart had a more venal agenda, she sounded convincing to a lot of people - after all, she is a good actress! She used her high-profile platform to say what others with less at stake financially were feeling.
As far as pornographers not having to worry about state authorities coming after them because they deem their work to be classier than their 'lowly' colleagues, the historical parallel that IMMEDIATELY comes to mind is that of German Jews who, in the 1930s, felt that the Nazis would never go after them but instead focus on the allegedly vulgar and uncultured Jews of Eastern Europe.
History knows that people keep forgetting its lessons. That's why it is so intent on repeating itself.
"If you put it all in context with DAC's Banana Cream Pies, in which Sabrine played "Fuckdoll", with an anal cream pie, and an ATP post the cream pie, then sucked the grubby cock from her ass clean, then you know why we love girls like Sabrine, and miss her now. Just so, so, filthy."
Could the quote above possibly refer to the same DAC who has so recently become the scourge of vile, dangerous and misogynistic porn products that degrade and imperil the women of our industry and make us sitting ducks for those who want to exterminate it? Is this the work of the same person who believes that his written commentaries regarding the artistic intent of his video endeavors will immunize him from prosecution under the tripartite standard of Miller v. California?
Perhaps DAC should form an alliance of convenience with former Sgt. Goff. Both seem rather too eager to expunge their own past sins by denouncing those of others.
BTW, DAC, did you pick up the tab for Sabrine's Zythromax script after shooting the wonderfully uplifting scene described above? Just wondering.
As to the larger argument, the notion that anything those who make porn might do in the way of creating less "offensive" products would somehow mollify those who detest the entire medium and want it suppressed is truly fanciful. If you'll take a moment to check out Robert Jensen's anti-porn screeds, as specie examples of how the other side thinks, you'll find he makes no distinction between Vivid features and Max Hardcore gonzos. Both are brutal, objectifying commodifications of women and equally contemptible as such.
For what it's worth, as one of those "prominent spokespeople & "authorities" within the industry" to whom DAC refers so derisively, I am not unaware of the current popularity of the kind of stunt-sex videos that get so much attention from industry critics, both inside and outside the business. Like Rockstone, I'm not particularly disturbed by the idea of porn that others may interpret as hostile, ugly or misogynistic (one of those words, like fascist, that is really just an epithet for something that some particular individual really dislikes a whole lot, rather than a description of a definable ideological construct).
If those products are made with the full, informed consent of the participants and sound precautions are taken to prevent physical harm to performers, I'm as prepared to defend their right to exist as I would be Samuel Beckett's plays. Creative endeavors don't have to be pretty or even constructive to be defensible. They just have to be licit and made within responsible boundaries of safety.
I think it's more important, in any case, that those wishing to understand and interpret the vast cultural phenomenon porn has become need to look at the whole picture. Certainly, hostility-driven content is a part of that picture, and because of its sensational nature, a highly visible one, but it does not represent all, or even a majority , of the porn being made today, which ranges from Playgirl TV to Gag Factor, with the vast preponderance of material falling far closer to the former than the latter.
While home video product has undoubtedly gotten harder in recent years, and enjoys significant profitability to be sure, the biggest money being made in the industry right now comes from cable and hotel distribution and mail-order sales that bear little resemblance to the raunchiest effluents to emerge from Porn Valley.
I've been here a long, long time - much longer than DAC - and I have no illusions about the less appealing aspects of this enterprise. But when I see the vast diversity of porn production out there and of the people making and consuming it, I find myself wondering who is in denial about the overall state of the industry and who distorts it to support a particular point of view.
I don't have to be an uncritical defender of everyone and everything associated with porn (and I'm not by any means) to suggest that it not be judged solely by either its mildest or most extreme creations, but rather in all its complexities and contradictions, without resort to the reductive oversimplifications projected onto it by its detractors.
To those who don't like certain types of porn, I would suggest not watching them. To those who don't like making certain kinds of porn, I would suggest not making them. To those who have nothing better to do than denounce their porn colleagues while picking up checks at the same offices, I would suggest the getting of lives might be in order.
We've gone over this ground before, Ira, but one last time: I'm hardly a johnny-come-lately, considering I've been in the adult industry since 1988 -- under my own given name at all times, the same name under which I have worked as a professional journalist & author outside of porn!
& as for the BANANA CREAM PIE series, which I'm reasonably certain you've never even seen: it hardly shared the mysogynist attitude of bangbus, et al, which was what we were discussing.
Yes, I was indeed playing with fire in respect to my performers' healths, but at least I had the class & good sense to renounce my past mistakes & apologize for them, unlike porno limousine liberals who will bend into all sorts of ridiculous semantical pretzels to justify the excesses of every corner of the industry from which they glean both their comfortable living & enough notoriety to feed their need for self-aggrandisement.
Come now, Ira -- have you EVER publically admitted to commiting any serious mistakes in judgement that might have impacted others? Or are you simply ALWAYS right -- & righteous?
You like to go on about how you've paid your dues for being some sort of stand-up guy firebrand, but it's easier to find an Ira Levine denouncement of lil old me at ADT here than any repudiation of the crap that anybody who labels themselves a humanist feminist should be troubled by. Am I, then, the bigger danger to the public health & welfare than any of that stuff, or is it that as an iconoclast with no financial or social big stick to wield at you, I'm a safe & convenient target for your predictable rhetoric?
There is indeed a quite easily "definable ideological construct " in the continuum of today's ultra-popular hate-porn, but since limning would be contrary to your immediate self-interest, you'd rather mobilize your towering intellect to try & repudiate me.
As well, in your zeal to go on the attack, you confuse the all-important legal distinction between what is offensive & what is obscene -- the first falls under protected speech, the second does not. Just because I no longer choose to go to the wall putting more-often-than not ill-informed & emotionally vulnerable performers at risk to their health for the sake of moving as many pieces as the next guy doesn't mean I have, or will, at all suppress or water down the themes & messages in my work. The germane issue here is not one of obscenity but of social responsibility.
& as to whether I would rise to the defense of crap in which I see no redeeming value -- which has been created by a thumb-severing, check-bouncing meglomaniac notorious for taking great joy in the hobby of destroying people's self-esteem while childishly pushing the government into coming after him simply so as to assure his own imagined spot in porn history -- with the same zeal as I would defend the art of Samuel Beckett, William S. Burroughs, Henry Miller, Larry Clark, Annie Sprinkle, et al -- yeah, you really got me there, pal.
Obviously, I must be on the payroll of the Mormon church, the Republican party, the NRA, the Family Values Assocation, & whatever other self-righteous, self-interested organizations folk like you go into orgasms demonizing when you yourselves are merely the mirror image of the same.
Ira, I'm bored with having the same argument with you once every three or four months -- your rhetoric is never more than arch, your conclusions always predictable, & your theses unchallenging, to say the least. You are the Tucker Carlson of porn.
Just as I no longer film cocks that have been in ten holes this week squirting their juice up raw, distended orifices only to be sucked out by a mouth tender with meth sores, I will no longer honor or humor you or your sycophants' supercilious & self-serving screeds by challenging the distortions & inaccuracies upon which they are generally based.
Circle-jerk away to your content, Master Greene. Clearly, you are the Daddy of us all, & we would do best to accept your version of the world without thought or question. Or else you'll put on your jackboots & spank us!
My, my, DAC, it certainly didn't take you long to rise to the bait you keep saying you won't take.
Fair enough, I'll answer your charges and then perhaps we really will be done.
I'll certainly grant you your props as a longtime member of this community, but I've been shooting porn, not writing about it, for 22 years. I've worked on active sets three or four times weekly during that entire period. I don't think you can match that breadth of experience, but okay if you do. Changes nothing.
As to the use of my real name, obviously, I'm not too shy about that as I've used it routinely, including in print, since I first came along. Ernest Greene is simply trademark to make my products more recognizable on the shelf. I don't hide anything about my life or my history from anybody. So go ahead and use my legal name all you want. Everybody else does and that's fine with me. Where it counts, such as when I speak up to the mainstream media on behalf of AIM or of this industry, I always use it myself.
I'm glad you're such a classy, sensible guy that you can admit to having shot all kinds of things you now regret, and I'm sorry I can't join you in these purgative acts of confession, but the truth is that my mistakes have been mainly financial and I'm the only one who's been hurt by them. However little you may like it, when it comes to performer safety and performers' rights, I've taken the responsible positions right from the start and paid the price for it in the dollars you seem to think are my sole motivation for living. I can't apologize for what I haven't done wrong. If you want to talk about bad business judgment, that's another matter. But as for harm done to others, well, if you know of any, do bring them forth. I'll make what amends I can.
You can call me a porno limousine liberal or whatever other names you like, but it's simply false to claim that I've labored to justify every excess committed by everyone in the porn industry to somehow benefit myself. I've defended strenuously the right of pornographers, including those whose work I don't like, to distribute their products without fear of content-based prosecution, but I've criticized industry labor practices frequently and publicly, long before it was safe or popular to do so.
For this, I've been accused of being everything from a traitor to a Nazi. I could easily have avoided all of that, not to mention the annoying heckling I get from you, by simply going along to get along the way most producers and directors do. If you think I've enjoyed being a lightningrod for these issues as a source of self-aggrandizement, you ought to know from your own experience by now that there is no glory to be had here for anybody by stating a contrary opinion of any kind. Principles are costly, especially if you're in a position to sell them out and choose not to, a decision for which the bigger players in this game show little forgiveness. You may think I've done well for myself here, and I don't deny that I have, but I could have done much, much better by keeping quiet and doing what I was told.
As to my predictable rhetoric in denouncing you, it would seem that, as in all our previous engagements, you were the one who came out swinging. Given the narrow range of concerns over which you seem so exercised, I would agree that the relevant rebuttals do get a bit familiar after repeated viewings. And no, I don't consider you a danger to the public health and welfare. In fact, I give you full credit for your good motives, however recently adopted, which is more than you grant me in return. Indeed, I take the time and trouble to reply to your comments not because I find you a defenseless iconclast but rather an intelligent adversary with whom I profoundly disagree on one or two points that I happen to regard as important. And there's absolutely nothing about my association with you I would characterize as convenient.
As for repudiations of the kind of material that you find so troubling, the reason I don't make them here these days is because I was doing so when you were still quite happy to be making that kind of material yourself. I'm already on the record on all that, over and over and over again. As a pro forma exercise, I always disavow what I consider to be abusive behavior in the making of any kind of porn. I merely refuse to fall into the trap of content-based attacks on what's actually in the pictures. I'm every bit as capable of making the distinction between offensive and obscene as you - I just do so in a different fashion.
I don't think obscenity is a meaningful, definable concept, so I simply address the actual conditions under which a product is made and support or oppose it based on its demonstrable harm to real human beings, as opposed to the sensibilities of viewers, which I leave to them to decide for themselves. Unlike you, I don't worry about impressionable minds being ruined by bad pictures. I don't believe that's how things work and I won't be pushed into saying otherwise, no matter how personally distasteful I find this or that piece of smut. Like I said, I don't have to watch, or make, anything I don't want to and neither does anybody else.
What self-interest you find in my refusal to draw what I see as a false set of conclusions about one of many prevailing trends in this industry at this time is mysterious to me. I don't make the pictures you're talking about, don't buy them, don't sell them, don't front for anybody who does and have no personal regard for those who do.
Quite the contrary. I work at the opposite end of this business, as you well know. In fact, if there were some kind of massive crackdown on the kind of porn you so despise, I would only stand to benefit, as my work couldn't be less similar. I shoot instructionals, fetish pictures, couples-friendly all-sex shows with nice production values and the occasional feature. I edit a magazine that's generally regarded as pretty high benign.
So what personal stake do I have in the well-being of those I regard as vicious bottom-feeders? Exactly none. I just have an interest in opposing censorship. I do so as a citizen, not an art critic. Do I think good art deserves greater legal protection than bad art? Nope. I don't trust you, me or anyone else to make that distinction. So yes, I do defend the right of what I consider bad art, including misogynistic, anti-humanistic art, to exist free of legal persecution. I guess you have me there.
If you define social responsibility by conduct, we are on the same side. If you define it by content, we are not. It's that simple. I'm dubious of mixing the concepts of art and social responsibility in a larger context in any case. Even real artists, much less the mean-spirited hacks who populate much of this business, can be monsters and often are. It is the misfortune of those who choose to associate with them that they make such choices, but I wouldn't presume to make those choices for them.
I'm just too puzzled by the whole mirror-image-of pro-censorship- groups argument to really address it effectively. I've never advocated silencing or ostracizing anyone on the basis of his or her beliefs or creations, though I certainly reserve and exercise frequently the right to criticize anybody I think is doing harm to others. I don't find the experience orgasmic, or even particularly pleasant, but I don't shrink from the necessity of it anymore than you do. I just try to avoid doing so from a position of self-righteous bitterness. I certainly do not ask or expect that my views be accepted without argument or question. I merely insist on my right to express them, and I'm not obligated to passively endure cheap shots from you or anybody else for doing so.
Rather than respond to all the useless ad hominem bullshit of your closing paragraphs, which if directed at any other kind of non-conformist sexuality would be instantly recognizable as mere bigotry, I'll simply ask you this:
Since you're so quick to dismiss me as a mere sycophant who has done nothing of value in over two decades as a sex-worker advocate and activist for sexual freedom, where is your list of accomplishments on behalf of those you claim to care for, wish to protect and hope to defend?
How is your campaign going so far and what has it achieved? Who have you helped and in what way?
On a closing note, I think this has been, until recently, a very constructive and interesting thread and I hope others will return it to its original direction.
If you're weary of these tedious exchanges, than at least we have that much in common.
