A positive and inspiring message for Shelley Lubben…

17 Comments on A positive and inspiring message for Shelley Lubben…

Michael Whiteacre on Mon, 10th Oct 2011 3:15 pm


It’s hard, but necessary, to set anger aside. When anger prevails, no one wins.

The difficulty in terms of the situation with Shelley Lubben is that she is an expert agitator. Since she does not use logical arguments, she is at an advantage when others are less than coolly rational. It’s a very effective method of manipulation.

It is very difficult not to be drawn into her fury. I know that I have, and I’m not proud of it. It lowered me to her level.

The desire to avoid that nastiness was why we went out of our way to avoid ad hominem attacks in The Devil and Shelley Lubben. We don’t call her names, although, certainly, there are people in it who are outraged at her. The documentary is about DISPROVING and REBUTTING her claims. The fact that we both support free speech and free expression in the form of adult entertainment is actually ancillary to the point of the piece, which is that Mrs. Lubben is a charlatan, liar and manipulator who does so in the name of G-d.

You and I both have been attacked by Mrs. Lubben — for even daring to question her story. She has been a disingenuous bully around me from the very first time I found myself in her presence — nearly one year ago, at that UCLA panel. It’s hard to like her, but it’s even harder to not feel sorry for her.

Still, the bulk of my sorrow is directed toward her family, who have suffered untold hours of torment over the fissure in their family unit.

In a perfect world, everyone is saved. I hope that will be true here, and if Shelley Lubben wants to seek help I would drive to Bakersfield and walk her in myself, hand in hand.

But, in a less-than-perfect world, if the only ones spared further harm and sorrow are her family and the women who will no longer be exploited by Mrs. Lubben, that is still a triumph.

The choice is Shelley Lubben’s to make.

Lydia Lee on Mon, 10th Oct 2011 3:37 pm


Very well said, sir.

Brandon Iron on Tue, 8th Nov 2011 6:11 pm


Feel free to actually take a look at any of the work I’ve produced since launching Brandon Iron Productions in 2002. I enjoy what I do and I’m proud of my productions.

My work may not be to some people’s tastes but it’s a far cry from abuse. I take strong exception to Shelley Lubben’s lies and allegations. She does not back up anything she says and refuses to engage in any sort of truth-seeking debate. It’s not fair; it’s not right.

While I support the overall goal of her stated mission, I have a low opinion of the tactics she uses to further her fund-raising. If this is what Lubben’s Christianity is all about, I’ll pass.

Lydia Lee on Wed, 9th Nov 2011 11:01 am


Hmmm… Well, I don’t know how to respond to that. Looking at your work, it resembles abuse. I guess the question is, do you consider women crying during or just after sex a “breakthrough?” Or better yet, do you use shifty tactics to get them to agree to the scene and do you get the feeling they deeply regretted taking the job during the scene or after? We are all capable of justifying what we do, but do you actually care that the female enjoys herself at all, or is it a strictly self-satisfied/moneymaking endeavor?

I do know some women enjoy rough sex. That’s quite different than what some of us have a problem with.

Anyone who thinks Shelley Lubben is “good at her core,” after hearing Michelle Avanti talk about how she was fed drugs and told to give her baby away if it came out black, is a morally deficient human being with no business advising anyone on anything, let alone points on self-esteem and spirituality. I read that gem recently from someone who appears either chemically imbalanced or on drugs, herself. Shelley Lubben is lower than snail shit.

Brandon Iron on Wed, 9th Nov 2011 6:19 pm


I prefer to deal in specifics rather than generalizations. If something resembles abuse, it could very well be abuse. If a woman is crying during sex, you would have to ask her why she is crying. Also, it would help to give a specific example. I’ve shot nearly every scene owned by my company and I am unfamiliar with anything like what you mentioned.

In the past, I hired women from every agency in Los Angeles. I am honest when I tell you that I never had a problem finding models to work. A person who is straight up with money usually doesn’t have a problem paying it….or finding people to take it. A fortune was made and a fortune was spent.

As for regretting a scene after it was shot, I think that may apply to more than one person in the industry. I also think adults are adults and can live with the choices they make.

Of course I care that a woman enjoys herself. Take Annette Schwartz, for example. She loved entertaining groups of men. It’s that simple. I find it hard to believe that anyone could watch her do a bukkake and not say she loved being the center of attention.

As far as I can tell, it’s like that old joke about the man who asks the woman, “Would you sleep with me for $100?” She says, “No!” He counters, “$10,000?” She says, “Well….ok.” He says, “How about $250 then? and she says, “What kind of woman do you think I am?” “I think we both know what kind of woman you are. Now, we’re just negotiating.”

It seems to me that when you use the phrase “looking at your work,” you should actually take the time to look at it.

Lydia Lee on Thu, 10th Nov 2011 11:52 am


I’m trying to figure where the joke you mention applies. We already know the females are willing to have sex for money just by their showing up. It sounds like you are trying to justify pushing them beyond anything they’re already willing to do. I think I read what you’re saying loud and clear.

Interesting choice of words, “I am honest when I tell you that I never had a problem finding models to work.” But that wasn’t the question, and it indicates nothing. Other than maybe two agents, none of them care about work details beyond “blow job” and “bog/girl” scene, as long as you pay. A better question might be, “How many of the women who’ve worked for you would line up to work for you again?”

I found a video where you talk about “cracking” girls around and how they might have regretted working in the scene with you. That does answer a question.

I can only watch so much of the choking, slapping, verbally abusive porn. It’s just not my thing, but when consenting adults like what they’re doing, I’m happy for them. But then that does get to the heart of the issue.

It is the nature of actual or implied abuse; the handful of directors that give the entire industry a bad reputation for how women are treated; the fact that there appears to be hole in the “consenting adult” part of the argument when that very uncomfortable moment arises during the scene when the female looks sad, or simply horrified. Getting the video-recorded admission and model release before the scene starts may cover you legally, but there is a reason why people get upset watching that kind of porn. All the justification in the world cannot diminish the emotional impact of that uncomfortable moment seen through the eyes of someone who was up for sex, but not the kind of sex it turned out to be.

I don’t know why you’d imply I haven’t actually looked at your work. I had to for a company I worked for and it nearly found me quitting my job. Instead I refused to watch anymore and took my chances. I am familiar with you, Mark Wood and a few others, and when a female is into what she’s doing, it comes across and it’s not at all uncomfortable, even if I don’t personally like the type of sex being performed. No problems there. It is when it is plain the model is unhappy that it becomes clear why certain titles are geared towards only new females. It is extremely niche stuff and appears to be more or less a legal excuse to use the business model to break young women for no other reason than ego and money. It incites the anti-porn crusaders and horrifies the pornographers who don’t like seeing women used that way. And at this point, you would already have to know that.

Brandon Iron on Fri, 11th Nov 2011 3:04 pm


Aren’t you glad that you are not defined by any acts you did 11 years ago? I mean, that wouldn’t be fair to someone like you, right? It would totally be unfair to dismiss what you’ve done in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and most of 2011.

I swear you use the same logic as Shelley Lubben. I ask for a specific reference to any of my work qualifying as abuse in your eyes, and you just repeat generalizations.

Before starting my own company, I produced for Extreme Associates. No product I did was ever declared obscene and I don’t have a criminal record. I’ll assume you do not, either, because your writing is very preachy.

RE: the joke I mentioned above and how it applies. I’m saying that 2 people can shoot similar acts and be judged in vastly different ways. I’ve performed for Kink.com. What I shoot in not nearly as strong as what they shoot….and I support both our rights to do so. Sometimes talent who get paid a very high rate do things they otherwise would not normally do. At the end of the day, having rough sex and getting paid $2,000 is not much different than having rough sex and getting paid $200. Sometimes a performer will look back at what they did and say they should have been paid more money. That’s where the joke comes in.

You asked how many women with whom I’ve worked are willing to work for me again. There are many. From Courtney Cummz to Bree Olson to Amber Rayne to Hillary Scott to Maya Hills to Isabella Pacino to (Is this really necessary?). Again, I’m being specific while you generalize.

Thank you for referencing a youtube video shot 11 years ago. As a journalist, I hope you update your sources. While you and Shelley Lubben point to one video, I have over 1,000 updates that paint a much broader picture. The problem is you have to have an open mind and believe either (a) I shot 1,000+ rape scenes or (b) some adults got together for some good times and shot it knowing exactly what time it was.

Lydia Lee on Sat, 12th Nov 2011 12:30 pm


Listen, if you’re not that kind of pornographer anymore, then I apologize for insinuating that you are, but I’m just starting to formulate my thoughts on this–literally, through this post and subsequent comment thread.

I wrote about my experience with Max Hardcore on this blog in 2009, interviewed Tanner Mayes later that year about Jim Lane, Porno Dan, and others, and read a short story by Kylie Ireland about Jim Lane and alcohol and the reality-type shoots he conducts where he strategically places problem women in his “Violation” series and purposely does things the “violated” actress does not want in order to create the actual upset/violation part of the scene. If my understanding about you and your work is incorrect, I happily retract anything I write or say, but your 11-year-old interview reads just like a series of tactics from Paul Little’s playbook. Just saying you’re not like that anymore now has me infinitely curious about what made you that way in the first place and why you stopped. Shelley Lubben and Gail Dines, as far as I know, are not people who single anyone out, but instead use criticisms about a few to direct it at the entire industry. They certainly don’t allow opposing comments and views and they don’t discuss facts with pornographers they are referring to when they talk about the niche of pornographers conveniently folded under the “gonzo” umbrella even though they are closer to bdsm than a typical blow job or boy/girl scene. BDSM describes in its acronym exactly what it’s about, while an actress can perform in multiple near-effortless “gonzo” scenes and end up on a set where she is not at all aware of the badsm-type details that go with that job. Kink.com plainly falls under BDSM.

Truth is, some of the gonzo lines rely heavily on 1) the female not being completely informed about what’s going on, and 2) a constant stream of new models, all of whom couldn’t possibly be “down” for everything except that they were only told what the scene is about after they showed up and then are spoken to very calmly and rationally about it all in a way to make it seem perfectly fine and normal until they are in the scene. Throwing more money at them makes sense considering how much more is required of them. I would never suggest some women don’t enjoy it, but when your product is about quantity over quality, my guess is the ‘enjoy’ over ‘not enjoy’ ratio favors the latter.

Little’s strategy:

I know a woman who worked under Gail Dines and was introduced to pornography by her, particularly Max Hardcore’s work. She became a fan. She, like others, think because it is legal and no one is pressing charges that it is just fantasy and no harm is done, but I explained to her the moments between the first phone conversation, up until the first frame was shot, and she was mortified. On paper, it’s all fine, but the subtle shiftiness; the way it all came about before anything was shot, was much more damaging than the actual scene. 1) Being told I had to show up by myself. 2) Being told I had to leave my car blocks away without directions for how to get back to it (which, incidentally, I refused to do because there was no way I was going to go to any job–regardless of the job–without a way to flee the scene should some catastrophe occur–earthquake, fire, robbery, etc…).

Men think they are transparent, but they’re not, and I am a logical person who survived the industry better than most. Telling me my car must be left blocks away to mitigate traffic sounds reasonable. I had already shot many “gonzo” scenes that went without a hitch. Using “reason” to explain why things must be a certain way is effective, or people like Paul Little wouldn’t use such tactics to get women into the situation and feeling vulnerable and choiceness without the security of their car and a loved one nearby. I was told I couldn’t bring anyone because it’s just an extra hassle to deal with extra people and that too many cars on the scene posed a problem for the neighborhood. Reason is effective. Period.

Fact is, I want to absorb and understand reason beyond everything else, because it makes sense to me. Shifty conduct and ill intentions are not something easily accessible to me–especially when I think I already have an understanding about what’s going to happen–because I, myself, am not that kind of person. It would not have occurred to me that anything beyond “normal” sex was necessary because Little told me he was also only into normal sex and I was not familiar with other kinds of sex beyond content, laughing, orgasmic sex. Actually, the term he used was “old-fashioned sex.” A subjective term he didn’t feel was a lie since he considers implied pedophilia, opening a woman with a speculum and face-fucking her until bile comes up enough so that she can make bubbles with it, to be “old-fashioned sex.” That is where the anti-porn people have their issues with how some women are treated within the legal adult industry. They can use words like “coercion” all day, but until it is spelled out, it means nothing to people who don’t actually know what’s going on.

A video is played and instruction follows: “This is the worst that is going to happen, but it HAS to happen because that is what these scenes are about.” Sounds reasonable, right? What isn’t spoken about the situation is that throughout the entire conversation, two very large men were standing behind my seat in Little’s office. I’m certain know now that it was not so much the scene itself that left me feeling so disturbed by the whole situation. It contributed, believe me, but it was all the subtle extras. Having to follow the guy to the house in my car without being given the address (even though I had the forethought to write it down as I went–it was still unsettling, though), the being there alone, those two big men standing behind me and having to look at his “work” as he smiled that crooked, vacant smile. And did my agent care that I had been told not to work for Max Hardcore and that I just didn’t want to? No. In fact, when I told him I’d been told not to work for him, my agent’s response was, “He’s not as bad as he used to be.” I said no, but then wasn’t given any details about the scene. I’d be very curious to know how he’d gotten “better”? Better from what? What was worse and beyond what he was doing at that time? Not knowing is not knowing. If I’ve never had sex like that in my life and have never seen it, I couldn’t possibly project what kind of sex it would be. That and there were things I hadn’t done in private that I tried on camera and enjoyed. This all centers around information and how it is withheld and then delivered.

I do take responsibility for my part in that situation. I could have and should have left at any time but I let the reasoning win over as long as we agreed that I would not perform any of the speculum and aggressive face-fucking he wanted from the scene. And then I was mean to him the entire time, and I don’t like being mean to people. That wasn’t the kind of sex I wanted to perform, which I eventually learned to push on people so I wouldn’t feel obligated to do something I didn’t want to do, and so they didn’t get a bad scene. It made me feel slightly better about the situation to be mean to him in the moment, but it still felt gross and it was not enough to curb the regret of having done it. And your interview sounds so much like what I experienced. How can you even sound like you are unaware of this kind of situation? You say we’re all adults capable of living with our decisions. How do you know that? Because you are? When you are not the person being abused, how can you possibly know someone else’s capacity for healing and dealing with hurt? You can’t. You think that just because someone doesn’t walk away with a broken leg that they aren’t as effected? That their wounds aren’t as tangible? When you hire someone, you’re in part responsible for them. There are plenty of pornographers who go out of their way to accommodate the comfort and satisfaction of all performers before, during and after the scene. It’s a matter of conscience and responsibility once someone is in your employ. When someone gives me all the facts before I show up, any reservations I may have on set are mine and mine alone.

If this feels like I’m attacking you, I’m not. I’m simply finally formulating ideas based on what I know vs. what other actresses have shared with me. At the company I worked for, I had to watch scenes with no title information and no talent names. There was a redhead shot outdoors and she looked extremely unhappy. Yours were far from the only scenes I watched, but you did stand out. And again, if you are absolutely positive every female enjoyed the scene, great, but your interview stands out. It’s at the top of the search engine and you specifically state that some models may have regretted the scene, which rolls into that whole ‘not stating it as bdsm-type work/lack of information prior to the model showing up’ and ‘lack of conscience and responsibility for someone you are hiring to work for you’ strategy.

I do still get judged for acts I did years ago, but like you, if I have changed so very much, I explain why I did those things and how I’ve changed. I never accused you of raping people, just possibly being a pornographer with no conscience or sense of responsibility for the people who work for you. Just because you haven’t been convicted of a crime doesn’t mean you’re not a predator. The same goes for Lubben. She becomes a predator the moment she feeds drugs to a person in her care, and so does the pornographer who knowingly endangers a performer in any capacity by pushing them beyond what they are already willing to do after they show up.

If I’m wrong, I’m glad to be wrong. I would prefer to stand corrected because unlike Lubben and others I’m not trying to make a living off of condemning people. I appreciate your taking the time to say anything, regardless of what you might think about my perspective and opinions. I worked with you once for Jerry T, and while I felt you were too aggressive during the scene and constantly had to stop you from handling me during the blow job scene (which, overall, made the scene very unpleasant for me, personally, since I didn’t feel what I enjoyed was of any importance), our conversation waiting for the scene to happen was pleasant enough.

Brandon Iron on Sat, 12th Nov 2011 5:24 pm


All I can do is counter everything you’ve said with what I know to be true now….as in today. I’m in europe and today was my 30th consecutive day of shooting. Each day I shoot one model. The scenes are relatively fast, quick, and easy.

Less than 24 hours ago, I had a conversation with the agent for the ladies. It went like this:

Me: Thanks for all your help. I’m having a great time.
Agent: I’m glad to hear that. The girls say you are fun to work with.
Me: Nice! Any complaints or concerns?
Agent: None at all. I’ll e-mail you next week’s schedule later today.

I’m happy to put you in touch with this agent if you’d like to verify this. In the meantime, you and Lubben can replay your 11-year-old soundbites and draw whatever conclusions you want.

I’m also happy to put you in touch with the “unhappy” redhead whose video you saw. She sent a Friend request to me on Facebook to say hi and keep in touch. She has a totally normal life and seems to be much, much happier now. She has a very different opinion than you. Strange, I’m sure, when victims won’t behave like victims ad infinitum.

In closing, than you for not accusing me of raping women (Lubben did and I take offence to this). I appreciate that you only think of me as a pornographer with no conscience or sense of responsibility for the people who work for me. You’re too kind.

I’m glad that you’re glad to be wrong. I only wish you didn’t print first, ask questions later. It would have been easy to e-mail me first so you could actually ask that redhead what her thoughts are now vs then. But that would imply a fair and balanced approach, wouldn’t it?

I understand you write opinion pieces and I have a new opinion of you, too.

Lydia Lee on Sat, 12th Nov 2011 5:57 pm


I bet you do.

Brandon Iron on Sun, 13th Nov 2011 10:35 am


So, naturally, you don’t want to hear the redhead’s opinion anymore? Why is that? Why do you get to have your own version of the truth yet anything that flies in the face of your conclusions is no longer relevant?

Oh…and I have a 31st reference for you, too. Another non-rape abuse victim had a pleasant time and I thoroughly enjoyed her company.

Doesn’t make for good blogging though. Sorry.

Lydia Lee on Sun, 13th Nov 2011 12:38 pm


Why are you so defensive? I’m an adult having a conversation and you’re throwing a temper tantrum.

Yes, I’d love to hear what your redheaded friend has to say, and could have said as much if you weren’t so blatantly insulting in your response. The way you ended the last comment I just assumed you wouldn’t be coming back here–factoring in your implied new opinion of me.

How many times do I have to say I am interested in informed facts? Reading one of my blog posts does not mean you know me anymore than my watching one interview means I know you. Maybe you should slow down and think about why you’re so defensive. It’s clear this is not just about one blog post–one blog post that hasn’t stated you’re a predator, just that “it is my understanding that you’re a questionable pornographer,” based on my personal experience with you in a scene, scenes I have seen you in, and that very popular interview you conducted saying some pretty specific things, none of which you have addressed at all. It would be useful to know why you make the distinction between then and now to know what your motivation was then and how that has changed. You also said you love women in that interview. It’d be great if you expounded on that and your work and practices today. If you don’t want to, fine, but obviously you are at liberty to say whatever you want here.

And if by “good blogging” you are implying that my writing is about being sensationalistic, I’d be reposting this and linking the hell out of it, but I’m happy to just have the conversation without making it a big todo. Evidently you are just as presumptuous about me as you imply I am about you. At least I am basing my opinion off of more than one scene. I do have a personal experience with you in a scene, though my information about your other work sounds outdated.

Yes, I am entitled to my personal opinion, as you are yours. I personally think people who are incapable of caring about what the other person likes and dislikes and therefore cannot adapt to an organic and reciprocal act, start their own lines so they don’t have to bother with what someone else is comfortable/uncomfortable with. That’s my personal opinion and doesn’t mean I am fully informed about why a person can’t adapt to another person in a scene and it doesn’t mean that’s the only motivator. One could say that I could’t adapt to the other person in the scene because I wouldn’t allow my hair to be pulled and wouldn’t go for being face-fucked. In fact, maybe what we’re butting heads about is just a perceived form of dominance–each preferring their own. My own unwillingness to be molded towards pain in a scene could be perceived as a kind of “domme” perspective, since I could be very aggressive about what I didn’t want.

I had resolved to investigate your current work rather than continue going back and forth since it just seems to be getting more convoluted.

Brandon Iron on Sun, 13th Nov 2011 6:19 pm


If by defensive, you mean I’m defending my good name and reputation in the industry built up over more than a decade, then sure, I’m defensive. When I read statements such as: “It is my understanding that Brandon Iron and Jim Lane are also very questionable pornographers that appear to abuse women in their videos,” I am more than happy to discuss this at length. I began by asking you for specific details from my work that would qualify as abuse in your eyes. You did not cite anything I’ve done for my company (started in 2002) and you referenced material over a decade old. That’s weak.

Perhaps you should think before you call out someone as an abuser or misogynist. Like Shelley Lubben, you prefer a bully pulpit to fact-checking. It’s beneath you to stoop to that level. At the very least, you should try to contact the victims.

I am much more in tune with myself than I was when I started in the adult industry. I am easy to work for and with. I care very much about what I do, as do you. Hundreds of positive experiences are debased by your innuendo and speculation and it takes away from years of accomplishments.

Your comments lead to “You’re working for HIM?? I heard he rapes women!” “Where did you read that?” “Oh, I dunno. I forget. Somewhere on the internet.” Congrats. Mission accomplished.

When you say “I’m an adult having a conversation,” I’m sorry that my part of the conversation has to be “No, I don’t rape women! Really!”

I wish you would take a minute, visit the blog at http://www.brandoniron.com, and tell me which of those women appear to be abused. (Spoiler alert: none).

Lydia Lee on Mon, 14th Nov 2011 8:22 am


I’m holding onto your last comment because, for now, this is going nowhere. I’ll do my research and we can start over.

Suh on Fri, 30th Mar 2012 12:01 pm


This definately went somewhere, just not the placit that Lydia wanted it to go. But really her accusations were so…sloppy and unfocused and her points so ridiculous that one has to wonder if she really gave much thought to the potential for this exchange before hand. For example, did she really negate the performers responsibilities to themselves ? For someone who sees themselves as posessing such a detail oriented and cerebral mind, she seems not to actually think in a very critical way. For example, were any performers actually making complaints ? Better yet, lydia asks in a decidedly superior tone “how many actresses keep working with you” ? The answer many. She accused him of being abusive, without using a single instance of abuse as an example, and without any victims, sorry without even confirming the EXISTANCE of any victims. It just seems hypocritical to slander porn (using vague generalities and very poor to nonexistent arguments) don’t like, for the sake of porn you do like, which it seems in your opinion to be the only worthwhile porn. Weak evasive arguments like the ones presents here are slander.

Lydia Lee on Fri, 30th Mar 2012 1:35 pm


To Suh:

I think my exchange with Iron is actually very coherent and reasonable until he says he has an opinion of me–which is understandable since I wrote what I did. He actually points to my observation being right, just outdated. He explained that the porn I am referring to is porn he shot over ten years ago and is no longer the kind of porn he shoots today.

I am compiling notes and conversation to better explain my ideas behind “harmful pornography”–using my experience but not basing analysis on my experiences, alone. Until then I should probably remove Iron’s name from my posts. Without proof, it is only speculation.

In my most recent article on http://www.MikeSouth.com–a companion piece to a critical article against anti-pornographers–I have an actual conversation with a predatory pornographer here: http://www.juliemeadows.com/blog/2011/10/10/a-positive-and-inspiring-message-for-shelley-lubben/

I appreciate Iron’s input (and said so), but you are correct that this was very much a fledgling look at something I’d only just begun to consider in depth. I will amend the article to exclude Mr. Iron, and only proceed with more questioning when I have actual evidence to supply–which may never happen. I hope it doesn’t because, really, people who are happy doing what they do is the preferred scenario, at least in my mind.

Thank you for your input.

Oh, and no, I do not negate the performer’s responsibility to themselves. I do think their is a responsibility for employers to disclose all information about the job before the employee arrives to do the job. I believe employers have a responsibility to provide proper care in every way to the people under their employ. I believe that trauma can uncover itself later in life; mentally, emotionally and physically. It may be harder to understand that, though, when you are the person dealing out the abuse rather than in the seat of the abused. Then again, there must be some ‘after effect’ to dealing out abuse? ‘Abuse’ being very general and identifying hitting someone hard across their face, for instance. Even defining “abuse” is necessarory in the sex work scenario.

Honestly, Mr. Iron seems intelligent and funny. I will articulate this better in future articles. Thank you for your contribution.

Donny Pauling on Fri, 30th Mar 2012 3:15 pm


Brandon,

I’m not sure where this conversation will go, but I’ll start out by saying this:

Changing is great. But if you are going to have an attitude of “I am no longer that guy,” it seems to me that “that guy” did things he knows weren’t really the best of choices. I produced porn for 9 years. I openly acknowledge all the things I’ve done. There’s really something freeing about “owning up”.

You wrote, “Thank you for referencing a youtube video shot 11 years ago. As a journalist, I hope you update your sources. While you and Shelley Lubben point to one video…” Unless I’m wrong, you seem pretty offended by Lydia’s reference to something you actually HAVE done in the past. Rather than get all pushed out of shape, it seems the better response would be something like, “You’re right. What I did was wrong. I learned from that and I’m sorry I ever did it.”

I’m unaware of the type of work you do now, so I’ll refer to Max Hardcore for a moment. Prior to his incarceration, Max did some pretty extreme stuff. He seems to have become some sort of martyr now, but that wasn’t always the case. Many people in the industry used to think his work needed to go. I’ve stood up at conventions and voiced directly to him my opinion that what he produced (and what Extreme Associates produced as well) was wrong and did nothing but hurt people, including other producers. Freedom of speech is great, but just because we CAN do something (legally) doesn’t mean we SHOULD. Just because a model/actress is legally an adult and “…adults are adults and can live with the choices they make”, that doesn’t excuse the responsibility of those of us who brought them into the circumstances of their regrettable choice. When lives are broken down from work they’ve done for us, we play a part in that breakdown, even if the broken later recover. Taking responsibility is a mature thing to do. And, again, it’s rather freeing.

Can a man who murdered someone 11 years ago expect to escape responsibility for his actions if, after the murder (let’s say he got away with it) he lived the life of a perfect role model? He obviously can’t expect the day to come when police overlook his past just because his present paints a rosier picture. I don’t see anything wrong with Lydia referring to work you’ve done 11 years ago. We are responsible for all of our choices, regardless of how long ago we made them. If the work you did 11 years ago illustrates a behavior pattern she is currently writing about, I’d say that’s fair game.

I understand your defensiveness here. That’s a normal human response. And I’m sure that what I’ve said is self-evident, so I’m probably just re-stating the obvious.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!