You Study What? Volume 1 – a review

August 12, 2013 by Julie Meadows | 8 Comments

I’m so happy to post this!! Dr. Chauntelle Tibbals is a thoughtful, respectful and honest acamdemic. She’s also my friend. Even so, it’s a real treat to boast someone’s work without the need for extra embellishments.

You Study What?

You Study What? One Sociologist’s Journey through Sex, Society, & Adult Entertainment (Volume 1) is Porn 101 from an academic perspective in delicious, digestible chapter portions. Dr. Chauntelle Tibbals’ perspective is refreshing, funny, candid and wonderfully illuminating.

I typically run from academic prose about sex and sex work, but anyone who reads Dr. Chauntelle’s website regularly––knows that she defies the stereotypes academics can sometimes embody when they are “looking in at [enter subject here]” and either don’t see anything especially interesting, or see much more than is actually there. Simply put, everything she writes about rings true because she’s looking at it through her personal lens with complete honesty; without coloring it with complicated (and dark) personal projections. We’re not machines, though, and so our perosnal lens also acts as a mirror. Fortunate for us, that mirror here reflects someone who is kind and completely adorable! Her not-so-prepared-for-this-to-happen moments had me howling.

Each story has an amazing point to make and was, personally, an educational experience for me. “The Thin Line Between Real and Fake” explores what constitutes “real” and “fake” when most people have some sort of physical alteration. “Average Joe and The Monster Cock” asks a never-asked question about men’s libidos in the face of so much size stereotype in marketing. And “Working the Booth” ends on a rumination about porn’s “decline” as possibly our being culturally and sexually ‘over it’.

I could go on and on about Dr. Chauntelle. She’s charming and witty, but really, none of this would come through if she weren’t also a very good writer. If her work in this form can be compared to food, You Study What? promises to offer an ongoing shmorgishborg of delicious nibbles I can’t wait to digest!

Buy You Study What? (Volume 1) exclusively through

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

Orange is the New Black – a review

August 5, 2013 by Julie Meadows | 12 Comments


This was a good, fast read. I became immediately smitten with author Piper Kerman’s perspective as a young woman fresh out of college chasing adventure, only to suffer her mistakes ten years after the fact in federal prison.

I have seen the ads for the Netflix series and thought it looked interesting, but it was an excerpt from the book featured in an online pubication that really piqued my interest. The excerpt was very funny. I find it interesting what we take away from a piece of art, because the excerpt that stayed with me was not funny.

“As a child, a teen, a young adult, I developed a firm belief in my solitude, the not-novel concept that we are each alone in the world. Some parts self-reliance, some parts self-protection, this belief offers a binary perspective–powerhouse or victim, complete responsibility or total divorcement, all in or out the door. Carried to its extreme, the idea gives license to the belief that one’s own actions do not matter much; we traverse the world in our own bubbles, occasionally breaking through to one another, but largely and ultimately alone.

I would to have been ready-made for prison time then, as a familiar jailhouse trope says “you come in alone, you walk out alone,” and common counsel is to keep to oneself and mind your own business. But that’s not what I learned in prison. That’s not how I survived prison. What I discovered is that I am emphatically not alone. The people on the outside who wrote and visited every week and traveled long distances to come and tell me that I wasn’t forgotten, that I wasn’t alone, had a tremendous impact on my life.

However, most of all, I realized that I was not alone in the world because of the women I lived with for over a year, who gave me a dawning recognition of what I shared with them. We share overcrowded Dorms and lack of privacy. We shared eight numbers instead of names, prison khakis, cheap food and hygiene items. Most important, we shared a deep reserve of humor, creativity in adverse circumstances, and the will to protect and maintain our own humanity despite the prison system’s imperative to crush it. I don’t think any of us could have managed those survival techniques alone; I know I couldn’t–we needed each other.

Small kindnesses and pleasures shared were so important, whether given or received, regardless of what quarter they came from, that they brought home to me powerfully that I was not alone in this world, in this life. I shared the most basic operating system with people who ostensibly had little in common with me. I could connect–perhaps with anyone.

Now here, in my third prison, I perceived an odd truth that held for each: no one ran them. Of course, somewhere in those buildings, some person with a nameplate on their desk or door was called the warden and nominally ran the place, and below them in the food chain there were captains and lieutenants. But for all practical purposes, for the prisoners, the people who lived in those prisons day in and day out, the captain’s chair was vacant, and the wheel was spinning while the sails flapped. The institutions putzed along with the absolute minimum of staff presence, and the staff that were there interacting in any affirmative way with the people who filled those prisons. The leadership vacuum was total. No one who worked in “corrections” appeared to give any thought to the purpose of our being there, any more than a warehouse clerk would consider the meaning of a can of tomatoes, or try to help those tomatoes understand what the hell hey were doing on the shelf.

Great institutions have leaders who are proud of what they do, and who engage with everyone who makes up those institutions, so each person understands their role. But our jailers are generally granted near-total anonymity, like the cartoon executioner who wears a hood to conceal his identity. What is the point, what is the reason, to lock people away for years, when it seems to mean so very little, even to the jailers who hold the key? How can a prisoner understand their punishment to have been worthwhile to anyone, when it’s dealt in a way so offhand and indifferent?”

I don’t know what they’ll transform into the amusing anecdotes of the show’s film translation, but I found the read to be as complex and serious as Janet Fitch’s White Oleander minus Fitch’s sweeping poetic overtures. It’s thoughtful and deeply kind.

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

John Fugelsang repurposes the term S.L.U.T.

August 3, 2013 by Julie Meadows | 6 Comments

Apparently “SLUT” means “Sexually Liberated Unapologetic and Truthful”. This is quick, funny, poignant, brilliant, and really just common sense perfect. A mental orgasm for reasonable people, if you will.

Thank you, Ed, for sharing this! John Fugelsang on Slut-Shaming (Video)

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

Porn Star Bowling

July 26, 2013 by Julie Meadows | 6 Comments

This coming Sunday an event is being held at Corbin Bowl called Porn Star Bowling. I’ll give you two guesses about what that means exactly. Hmm? Yes, it has to do with porn stars. Do they bowl? Why, yes they do. Well, some of them, I’m sure.

Here is the link: FSC, LATATA Co-host Porn Star Bowling Fundraiser on July 28

And here’s a flyer I hope doesn’t require 2257 record-keeping.


You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

A few good articles: 2257 Case’s Post-Trial Reply Briefs

July 9, 2013 by Julie Meadows | 6 Comments

The Free Speech Coalition, et al. v. Holder trial is winding slowly down and AVN’s Mark Kernes continues to offer the kind of reportage you will not find in the mainstream press.

In Post-Trial Reply Briefs Filed By Both Sides in 2257 Case, Part 1, Kernes affords us an inside look through the post-trial briefs–along with a thorough breakdown–of what’s fundamentally wrong with the 2257 & 2257A record-keeping laws.

What both sides did observe, though, is the judge’s order that the plaintiffs’ brief deal exclusively with the government’s Fourth Amendment arguments, and that the government’s deal with plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims—and right off the bat, the government gets it wrong.

“Plaintiffs’ post-trial brief makes clear that the heart of their concern with §§2257 and 2257A (’2257′) is not that checking photo IDs of individuals who appear in their work prevents them from creating sexually explicit depictions of adults,” the government brief begins—with a “straw man” argument, since that was not most plaintiffs’ claim, and since testimony revealed that all adult industry producers check models’ IDs as a matter of course. “Instead, plaintiffs simply regard the statutes as flawed as a matter of principle, by (in their view) forcing them to prove that their work is not child pornography. That view reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of this prophylactic regulatory law.”

Actually, the “fundamental misunderstanding” is all the government’s, since what it terms a “prophylactic regulatory law”—in other words, “Hey, fella, we’re just doin’ our job here; nothin’ more to see, so move along”—is in fact a complete reversal of the most basic concept of American jurisprudence: The defendant (in this case, any adult content producer) doesn’t need to prove him/herself innocent; the government needs to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt (since this is a criminal statute), that the defendant has committed the crime with which he/she has been charged. And in the case of minors in porn, the government has never found that an adult industry producer has knowingly put one in any of its productions—and the government only found out about the (almost literal) handful of minors sneaking into the industry, not by inspecting 2257 records, which it has done officially 29 times, but because the industry itself told them! [emphasis in the original]

And there is plenty of emphasis in the next paragraph, as well. Kernes incredulity spilling over more with every sentence.

Guilty until proven innocent. That is the problem with 18 U.S.C. § 2257 & 2257A. It treats citizens performing a legal job as if they are not citizens performing a legal job, but criminals probably breaking the law. It assumes the worst about a segment of American citizens and makes special exception to remove their rights by subjecting them to warrantless searches and seizures. Happy Independence Day, right?

Post-Trial Reply Briefs Filed By Both Sides of 2257 Case, Part 2:

In The plaintiffs’ reply brief, written by trial counsel J. Michael Murray and Lorraine Baumgardner, deals exclusively with the government’s objections to plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims, as ordered by Judge Baylson, and the fact that the FBI’s 2257 inspections that took place in 2006-7 violated the Constitution’s prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures couldn’t be more clear.

“The evidence establishes that under the authority of 18 U.S.C. §2257 and its implementing regulations, government agents: (1) without a warrant or probable cause; (2) entered and occupied homes and private businesses, in many cases, for several hours; (3) examined and copied private records containing personal information; and (4) took photographs of the areas and files they searched,” the plaintiffs’ brief begins. “Agent Lawrence admitted that without the authorization afforded by 18 U.S.C. §2257, he would have needed a search warrant to accomplish what occurred during the inspections. Under well-established precedent establishing the restraints placed on the government’s power to search for evidence by the Fourth Amendment, the regime allowing these inspections is unconstitutional.”

There is much more and I highly recommend reading the articles in their entirety, as usual.

Mark leaves us with this:

Now, with all the post-trial briefing completed, plaintiffs must wait for Judge Baylson’s ruling in the case, which is expected to occur before the end of July—and when it does, AVN will be ready to analyze it and its effects on the adult industry.

Thank you, Mark!

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

The Deep Throat Sex Scandal Movie – Indiegogo

July 3, 2013 by Julie Meadows | 0 comments

David Bertolino has only a few days left to raise money for his film version of The Deep Throat Sex ScandalThe theatre production was a huge success, and now Producer Bertolino and Director Quinn Monahan want to bring it to audiences around the world. [Review of the theatre production here!]

This is a movie about artists like you and me simply being attacked by their own government for simply doing what they love. ~ David Bertolino

The perks are fun, too. Check out the Indiegogo Page and peruse the benefits to contributing to Bertolino’s film version of The Deep Throat Sex Scandal!

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

July 2, 2013
by Julie Meadows

Jon Rodgers writes Assemblyman Mike Gatto

Adult content producer and APC4C Member, Jon Rodgers, sent the following letter to Assemblyman Mike Gatto over AB-332 some weeks ago. He sent a follow-up letter asking which bill Assemblyman Isadore Hall would try to roll the condom legislation into. Point being, this isn’t over.

Oh, and my apologies for the lack of ominous identity-hiding and pseudonym-giving where Jon’s name is concerned. I asked him if I could just name him. Novel, I know.

Dear Assemblymember Gatto:

I am writing to respectfully request that the Appropriations Committee reject AB-332 because it simply cannot do what the Aids Healthcare Foundation claims.  Here are the adverse consequences that the public and government agencies can expect at the minimum, if AB-332 were to become law:

  • It will spawn an entirely new, and by definition, illegal adult entertainment enterprise with entirely new players, most likely from the criminal elements of society.
  • It will provide lucrative financial opportunities for these illegal enterprises to expand their underground activities in order to manufacture and supply what will become an even greater insatiable consumer demand for condom-free adult entertainment.
  • There will be absolutely no safeguards because these enterprises will not be able or willing to follow any testing protocols.
  • Therefore, these illegal enterprises will only be able to recruit untested and high risk performers from off the streets and conduct their illegal activities in high risk health environments, most likely in areas with already high crime rates.
  • The financial impacts for enforcement (if even possible), highly probable lawsuits and medical costs to provide care for high risk and untested performers who contract Sexually Transmitted Diseases and spread them to the public at large, will increase to extraordinarily high and possibly intolerable levels.

In closing, I expect the proponents of AB-332 to dispute or deny the above.  However, their arguments will be inconclusive at best.  On the other hand, if you permit condom-free adult entertainment to remain legal, you will indisputably prevent these problems.  Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Respectfully Submitted,
Jon Rodgers


Thank you, Jon, for understanding the problem and doing what you can to share this information.

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

Some Comments on Blogger’s Adult Content Sweep

June 30, 2013 by Julie Meadows | 3 Comments

As of tomorrow, according to a notice received by those blog users using Blogger’s free hosting service, many adult content sites that have not rid their blogs of adult-related ads over the last four days will get deleted. There’s been some confusion as to what this means exactly. Some of the wording is vague enough to cause alarm, but the general consensus is that it is purely ad-related; either due to generated ad revenue, malware, or both. Either way it has got people talking about the malware that comes from many non-adult-related sites. [Read notice here--NSFW.]

I want to highlight two comments made here about it because I think they could be of use to people still searching for information.


3rd party ad servers are common targets for malware writers because it’s an easy platform to get malware installed on a wide number of computers. I think the majority (if not all) of the ad servers that are infected cater to adult content.

Most of the instances I had found malware installed on my computer was after I had visited an adult site with a 3rd party ad server. Many of those sites were hosted on Blogger.

Norton and McAfee (and possibly others but I’m only familiar with the two mentioned) claim to determine the risk factor of every website they are able to test and if the website presents a high enough risk they block access to those sites if you have their browser add-on installed.

On a few occasions I have visited the main Blogger site, or a blog hosted there, and McAfee’s SiteAdvisor has blocked my access a few times (not recently though). That said it is entirely possible that since there is nothing they can do directly about 3rd party ads the next logical step would be to prevent the sites they host from being able to use them.

In other words, no 3rd party ads equals a safer website.

Anthony Kennerson:

Brian makes an excellent point about third-party ads being magnets for malware hacks…especially in Blogger blogs that have been just sitting there not being updated. It may be that Blogger has been nailed so often by such malware that they simply decided that it would be more cost effective to blow out all adult blogs with ads.

Problem is, plenty of adult blogs are clean, and I know of plenty of non-adult blogs that are just as much suckers for malware hacking….yet I don’t see Blogger going after them with the nuke. And, there are lots and lots of third-party ads in non sexual content as well, yet only sex blogs get the boot. Seriously, Google??

This sounds so much more like selective censorship of sexual content in order to please the prudes and focus their “marketing” on a more conservative demographic (and to “protect the children”/”fight sex trafficking”).

In any case, until I see elsewhere, I’m mirroring BPPA on my WordPress network, just in case.

On the other hand, though, there are some adult webmasters who might not be so against the move because some of these free Blogger adult blogs were being used by content theives who were stealing content from paid membership sites and reposting them on their Blogger blogs with links to fake cam or adult dating sites.

Thank you very much for the input guys!

To read all of the comments, follow this link to Blogger to Delete Adult-Related Blogs in Four Days.

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

June 28, 2013
by Julie Meadows

Ellen Page on Feminist Porn & Anna Paquin on True Blood Porn Parody

Ellen Page gave her fans the opportunity to ask her questions on Reddit recently, and was asked pretty quickly by pornographer Courtney Trouble, “you identify as a feminist, do you have any specific thoughts on misogyny in our day and age right now? what do you think about the current feminist porn movement? also, you rock! we love you.”

Page replied, “I think we are in a very scary time right now. The rhetoric from the right wing is terrifying to me. I think feminist porn is crucial. To only have porn from the male perspective is damaging. Women are sexual creatures, as much as men and that needs to be embraced.”

I read about this at here [NSFW]. What a logical and refreshing statement to read. Impressive.

Then, I was informed via twitter that Anna Paquin gave around 300 copies of the True Blood porn parody to cast and crew as a wrap gift. Which is… hysterical!

LOL!!! Happy Friday!!! XD

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!