I think it's time for debates on human trafficking, pornoggers and free speech to turn anew.
Being involved with human trafficking should be an automatic prison felony. This means the transport, sale or exchange of people directly or through indirect channels. Everyone here is in agreement on this. I've talked about getting intelligence agencies off the war on drugs and more involved with ICE/DHS, Interpol and other international groups' efforts who want to fully stop this male-centered epidemic. BTW, I was formerly known as ndw on this board.
Anyone with half a brain knows filming coitus or directly/indirectly engaging in pornography is not only being a chicken but it lets loose their identity and opens up their druthers to blackmail, extortion, etc. See my post at:
http://www.outlandishjosh.com/wordpress/?p=1690 ( I posted under ''Without A Net'' )
I also believe we can all agree that prostitution is the same thing as pornography with similar or the same financial structures except the latter is done on film and that the johns aren't quite so anonymous.
What I've heard about GGW ( I've seen some of those late night clips myself too, yukyuk ) is it is short of risque but not pornographic. They show topless girls, girls kissing girls and sometimes naked girls. Is it tasteless? Yes. Pornographic? Not really.
I've taken a professional interest in studying certain online non-pornographic '' fetish sites ''. I go out of my way to assure that more than 75% of the sites I visit are neither hosted by known pornographic site hosting firms nor financially sanctioned by said firms.
I believe there is a growing artistic '' fetishist '' community who actively opposes pornographers. These are non-nude folks who dress in bikinis and leather and show off their dressed breasts, buttocks, feet and faces. Kind of like some of the things one sees when visiting
http://www.deviantart.com/ Some may consider the fetish form of erotica as a healthy substitute to pornography. To that I say, sheeya; whatever.. Anyway, I think GGW falls under the fetishist category ( but they ain't artistic -- they're commercial ).
Perhaps the sub debate here is, are depictions and photographs of fetishism actually porn? I think in the digital sense that the fetish performers don't follow the same patterns of behavior as the pornoggers. True, some of the fetishists may be moonlighting as on-film tricks but that's narrowing it down to identity and what one does in terms of livelihood all the time. It is also true this '' cultural '' hybridization doesn't remove the element of cross-syndication. That's why I said before I was screening out the skank from the fetishism.
Once you debate the finer points of what is and isn't endangering the physical and mental welfare of a woman or man you cross into the realm of ideological debate. I believe in their hearts most men are anti-porn. I know most feminists are and I hope the items I addressed here are debated more in the future. It goes way past the '' I know it when I see it '' argument and into the ways & means, personal integrity, a nation's culture & history and biological needs concerning sex.
>July 23, 2006
>Back in the 80s when Cindy Lauper’s hit single, Girls Just Wanna Have Fun made it to the airwaves and stereo systems wherever it was liked, some girls’ idea of having fun was sort of naïve and not as xxx rated.
For such girls’ idea of fun could have comprised of events such as, hanging out at the mall, giggling and watching the boys go by (girl watching if you are a lesbian) catching up on the latest goings on with your friends’ love lives or bringing oneself up to date on the gossip about her peers, movie stars etc. Fast forward to the 21st century where some girls’ idea of fun has reached a new level.