ErosBlog

The Sex Blog Of Record
 
 

WAP Takes A Porn Tour, 1979

Tuesday, December 19th, 2017 -- by Bacchus

I was not previously aware that the late-1970s group Women Against Pornography (WAP) conducted its fundraising by maintaining an office in Times Square and running guided safari tours of the local fleshpots for outraged female tourists. But that’s what I learned while reading this profile of Richard Basciano’s Show World flesh palace in The Rialto Report, which reproduced this 1979 newspaper story about the WAP tours:

women against pornography tours of times square peep shows

As transcribed:

Pornographic Tours
Woman’s Group Tries to Combat Sexual Degradation

NEW YORK (AP) – Behind the liquor bottles lining the dimly lit bar, two bare-breasted young women danced slowly, touching the mirrored wall, twisting to the pulsating disco beat.

At small tables, a dozen well-dressed women huddled over drinks and stared — but not with the leering interest the dancers may have been used to.

“That’s one of the saddest things I’ve ever seen,” said Irene Agnelli), one of the first-timers at the Mardi Gras “topless” bar, the lafct stop on an unusual tour.

The twice-weekly tour of peep shows, “adult” bookstores, and other sex emporiums is run by a group called Women Against Pornography and is intended to raise consciousness as to the effect of pornography on society’s view of women.

“Pornography is psychologically destructive to women’s self-image and endangers our welfare in real life,” says group organizer Barbara Mehrhof.

“The essence of pornography is about the degradation and brutalization of women … in the name of entertainment, in the name ol tree speech, in the name of profits.”

The group, founded several months ago by feminists Gloria Steinem, Lynn Campbell, Dolores Alexander and author Susan Brownmiller, wants to establish pornography as a national feminist issue.

“We’re starting here because it’s the porn capital of the country,” says Ms. Alexander.

The activities of the group, which plans a two-day pornography conference here next month and 20,000-person march on Times Square in October, are applauded but not officially endorsed by the National Organization for Women.

Women Against Pornography believes “women have to be encouraged to look at this stuff and have the support of other women, says Ms. Mehrhof.

So, armed with maps, quarters for peep show movies and a wealth of curiosity, bands of women of all ages and backgrounds gather at the group’s Times Square storefront and proceed toward the blinking signs offering “Girls! Girls! Girls!” and “Topless and Bottomless.”

On a recent night, a guard tried to block one tour group from entering Show World, a sex supermarket featuring pornographic films and “live entertainment.” “No women allowed without escorts,” he said.

“It’s illegal to keep us out,” shouted the women, who eventually were permitted to go inside after they produced identification proving they were over 21.

At Peepland, a similar establishment some of the women giggled and hesitated before crowding together into booths to glimpse films entitled “Leather Porno,” and “The Perverted Professors.” Some of the films featured children, animals, and gang rape.

Other narrow booths contained windows to a live show in which nude women stretched on a carousel and pressed their bodies to the glass.

“I am sick to my stomach,” said one of the touring women, a 54-year-old mother of four daughters. “I find it extraordinarily demeaning.”

“Maybe the courts will begin to see it as a crime against women,” added Ms. Alexander.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that material cannot be judged obscene unless it meets three criteria: that it depict patently offensive, hardcore sexual conduct; lack literary, artistic, political or scientific, value and go beyond contemporary community standards.

The “contemporary community standards” are what WAP is trying to change.

“You can change the climate of opinion so pornography is no longer acceptable,” Ms. Mehrhof says. “If we can change peoples’ attitudes, they won’t want to see it.”

At Pussycat, where men may make $1 phone calls to scantily clad young women in glass booths, the tour group gathered in the center of the floor and eyed the women as they waited for customers.

“Tell them not to take pictures!” shouted one woman employee from her booth. “We’ll break their cameras!”

They look down on us women,” she said. “They think we’re illiterate — but their husbands are supporting us.”

The tour women gathered on the teeming street outside. “Our looking at them was worse than the men,” said Irene Agnello. “I really felt we were looking at them with a kind of judgment, and not giving anything.”

Did you notice that the Associated Press flatly reported the unsourced claim that there was child pornography freely on display in a Times Square peep show booth? In 1979, in Manhattan? If that had been true, the operators would have been led off in handcuffs in no time flat. Possession of child porn was just as big a federal felony then as it is today, no need to worry about getting a community-standards obscenity judgment in order to obtain a conviction. Even the mob did not fuck around with kiddie porn. Much more likely: the reporter bought into some bullshit from one of the anti-porn interviewees, and passed it along uncritically. In 1979 or 2017, any reporter dumb or lazy enough to give a one-sided uncritical profile to an anti-porn activist is too dumb and lazy to be trusted to do basic journalism when they write up the story.

Similar Sex Blogging:

 

Share Our Shit Saturday 6 #SoSS

Saturday, December 16th, 2017 -- by Bacchus

Is it Share Our Shit Saturday already, again? It is!

  1. From the department of “when they do these things, I’m relieved that I don’t have to”, Michael Samadhi has extensively debunked a stupid anti-porn article in The Atlantic, from whom we usually expect better. (I’m so old I remember when bloggers called this sort of thing “a fisking“.)
  2. I am dazed with professional awe at how Girl On The Net managed to handle the always-tricky situation in this post where a sponsor/supporter of the post requested a very specific but kinda obnoxious link anchor text. She managed to at once disclose and accommodate the less-than-awesome request while (a) to all external appearances completely satisfying the sponsor, and (b) not compromising any of the stuff that makes the post good and fun (which it totally is; it’s a do-it-yourself guide to turning a motorized Fleshlight into a hands-free dick-milking machine).
  3. The third share this week is a two-parter from Not Just Bitchy on vetting potential submissive men for boyfriends or play partners, although honestly I can’t see anything in here that wouldn’t be just as applicable to vetting men as dominant or vanilla date/playtime material. (Part One, Part Two.) This sentence hooked me: “While vetting isn’t a magic cure-all, people mostly suck at lying about who they are and they extra suck at it when they don’t realize they’re kind of terrible and probably should lie about who they are.” And then this paragraph set the hook: “Whether you want a long-term romantic relationship with a submissive boyfriend or you just want a play partner who will treat you like a human being, guys who can’t clear that bar are usually super obvious about it. Seriously, it is not hard to catch them. At all.”

Similar Sex Blogging:

 

Anti-Porn Activists Ignorant About Actual Porn

Wednesday, February 17th, 2016 -- by Bacchus

Have you ever noticed how bizarrely disconnected from reality most anti-porn proposals (whether cultural or legislative) seem to be? Here, in the context of the latest British anti-porn madness, is an explanation:

Plans to control overseas porn sites tend to work on the framework established by efforts to curb overseas gambling. Namely, they go for the financial service provider, the middle-man who takes the money from the user and gives it to the website they are joining. As anyone with even the most basic understanding of how online porn operates knows, this will be ineffective, because most sites are free. But the people organising the consultation do not seem to know this.

This level of ignorance is not unusual in anti-porn crusaders. I first came across the financial transaction approach when looking into a private members bill from Baroness Howe, which did largely what the government now intends to do (they were always going to approach the problem by stitching together various backbench bills into a Frankenstein’s monster). When I called Baroness Howe to ask about the bill, her staff were unable to explain it in even the broadest terms and in fact became quite irritated by my having asked. It eventually became clear that the bill had been written for her by a Christian family values group, seemingly in its entirety.

When I asked their resident policy expert what good it would do to target financial transactions when most sites were free, he repeatedly insisted to me that this was not the case and that the majority charge. It was quite amusing. This is a common theme among anti-porn campaigners, both among Christians and radical feminists: they are so disgusted by it they have no experience of it. They quite literally have no idea what they are talking about.

Similar Sex Blogging:

 

The Porn Wars (In One Paragraph)

Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 -- by Bacchus

deep-throat-protest-01

There was an excellent article by Zoe Williams in The Guardian yesterday about fair trade porn. So excellent was it that, frankly, I think the editors should be ashamed of the unwarranted click-baiting question mark in their headline: Is there such a thing as ethical porn?

Zoe Williams seems to have relied heavily on detailed interviews with Pandora Blake and her merry band of collaborators at Dreams Of Spanking, which was a wise choice. And there’s much goodness to be had in the interviews and quotes with other “fair trade” pornographers, such as long-time ErosBlog favorite Madison Young. But my absolute favorite part of the article is a single lengthy paragraph in which the complete history of the feminist porn wars is recapitulated and fought in Zoe Williams’s mind at a feminist convention in 2011:

I have confronted my views on porn only once, in 2011, at a UK Feminista meeting, 1,000 women strong. Someone in the audience said, “Exactly what’s wrong with me getting off on Debbie Does Dallas with my boyfriend?” An audible part of the audience was instantly furious: porn was exploitative, it was impossible to make porn without damaging the women who performed in it. Plus, when she said she “got off”, what she really meant was that she’d internalised her boyfriend’s sexual pleasure. I was conflicted: the kind of people who say porn is exploitative, physically and psychologically, are generally the people with whom I agree on everything. Yet, in this one particularity, I cannot agree with deciding women are being exploited unless they say they are. And, much more trenchantly, I cannot agree with adjudicating what someone else gets off on. Even if she is turned on by a fantasy that traduces your political beliefs (and her own), sexual fantasy is a sacred thing; you can’t argue it away, and nor should you want to. And the key argument, that it causes male violence, I don’t buy; what we watch might influence the way we behave, but not in obvious ways that you can map.

If I was the kind of guy who got text tattoos, I think “I cannot agree with deciding women are being exploited unless they say they are” would be a fine candidate. It would do for an ErosBlog motto, too.

Moving on: Pandora Blake is quoted being smart about porn throughout the article, but my favorite quote is this one on anti-porn feminists watching the wrong porn:

Blake says: “When you read them [anti-porn feminists], it’s very obvious that they’ve typed ‘hardcore gonzo’ into Google and watched the free stuff. They’re obsessed with the worst of it.”

Not only do I agree that the anti-porn feminists (although I cannot use that phrase without wondering how feminist it can possibly be to deny the agency of women who make porn) are looking at the worst porn, but I think the problem even goes beyond that. I think they are looking at the worst porn and then, using empathy, they are projecting their own imagined reaction were they modeling the scene onto the models, of whose motivations, professionalism, and physical skills they are utterly ignorant. I first encountered this made explicit in the notorious “threads swimming in blood in your throat” passage by Andrea Dworkin, who, upon seeing the movie Deep Throat, seems to have re-imagined it as a horror movie based on her own gruesome fantasies of what giving a blowjob must be like. The rest of us saw rather a different movie.

linda lovelace preparing to give Harry Reems a blowjob in Deep Throat

Similar Sex Blogging:

 

Windows 8: Not Porn Friendly

Monday, September 10th, 2012 -- by Bacchus

This article here talks about the porn policies of all the major consumer-oriented cloud data services, revealing industry-wide unwillingness to give clear answers to simple questions like “can I store my porn on your service? And if not, why not?”

For me the eye-opener was Microsoft, however, which has draconian anti-porn policies (you’re not allowed to store “nudity of any sort” on their SkyDrive service). “Fine”, I’m thinking, “because I don’t want cloud data services anyway.” And then I saw this bit:

SkyDrive is connected to your Microsoft account. If Microsoft suspends your SkyDrive, you also lose access to any connected Outlook or Office software or Windows Phone and Xbox 360 devices. This incredibly strict code of conduct could end up cutting off other services you depend on.

And another problem: Microsoft is pushing you to use SkyDrive in Windows 8 and Office 2013. SkyDrive is deeply embedded into the Windows 8 OS.

Depending on what “deeply embedded” turns out to mean in practice, this could mean that if you work in an adult-oriented industry, you’re be unable to safely use a Windows box once Windows 8 achieves widespread distribution. Awesome!

 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 
cupid