Disturbing things…

28 Comments on Disturbing things…

Jim Mazz on Wed, 7th Dec 2011 12:10 pm


Good post! I don’t understand this particular niche; but it’s certainly grist for Dines and others.

Anti-porn arguments focus on harm/dehumanization: through coercion, objectification, or both. They certainly try to make the case that ALL porn (industry and the films) does this. Clearly, not all porn does this (and we both know the examples of porn that does not do this).

But we also both know that there are instances and examples of harm. The question that must follow are: what is the harm? How prevalent is it? How difficult/easy is it to avoid the harm? etc.

Julie Meadows on Wed, 7th Dec 2011 12:24 pm


Right! If they have a legitimate claim that certain pornographers prey on unsuspecting women, what are the patterns and who contributes?

Michael Whiteacre on Wed, 7th Dec 2011 1:46 pm


Lydia, you write, “The point is to understand the concerns; to understand what the anti-porn perspective is all about.”

That’s laudable, but, in my view, you will not learn a thing about the anti-porn “perspective” by examining the extremes that they conflate with the norm in order to use abuse as a pretext for stopping cultural decay through pornography. Taking at face value their “concerns” as reflective of their true intent is like believing Shelley Lubben when she says “I risk my life for children every day.”

The Gail Dines argument is not actually an argument — it’s simply a shock tactic. Look at this horrible porn! It’s so bad that IT MUST therefore lead to harm in viewers. She uses Max Hardcore and torture porn for the same reason a prosecutor would use shock tactics on a jury. Instilling a feeling of disgust and shock in the jury prejudices them.

Is abuse on set wrong, Absolutely. Should Max and the agent mentioned above have done what they do. No. Abuse is abuse and it negates consent. However, do you believe for a second that Gail Dines would just go away satisfied if only what she calls “violent” gonzo porn were eliminated?

The anti-porn perspective is about many things, but none more prevalent than the authoritarian device that any kind of sex which does not meet their standard of approval is rape or abuse or un-Christian or harmful or trafficking or fill-in-the-blank….

Gail Dines has been watching and researching this “harmful” porn for decades, yet somehow she is impervious to all its ill effects. She, like the rest of her ilk, insist on telling us how to live and how to think. You want to know the anti-porn perspective? Authoritarianism is the anti-porn perspective.

Brian on Thu, 8th Dec 2011 7:23 am


I personally think it is folly to waste one’s time trying to figure out the stance of most anti-porn proponents. I too thought it would be prudent and fair to familiarize myself with their viewpoints but when I found that the majority of those arguments are based solely around amended religious beliefs* that finding the amount of reason one applies to a decent argument would be futile.

(*: Since there is no “Thall shall not jerk off to porn” commandment, the one about adultery was extended to include porn [and homosexuality])

As I recall the government wanted to find a legal route to shut down the porn industry for good. To that end they had studies done to find a harmful link to viewing porn. The results of those studies were inconclusive. So, yes, the only recourse for anti-porn proponents to get the porn industry to shut down is to take the poster child, in the form of Max Hardcore, known for coercing women to perform acts that most porn fans would find appalling.

Why is a particular niche in porn popular? Paraphrasing what a comedian had said during a performance, give me a sex act and I’ll guarantee there’s a magazine devoted to it.

These days though it would be a website.

Also, just about everything is subjective. Words like “typical” and “normal” come to mind. For example, there was an interview with a woman who claimed that during her time at a boarding house for kids that there were no instances of abuse. She claimed she got punished and her recollection of that punishment would give you the impression that the type of punishment was perfectly normal. While some people might think of punishment as sitting in a corner, another might think of it as being spanked, this woman described “normal” punishment as to lay face-down with a chair placed over her (she couldn’t remember if someone sat in the chair or not) while people held down her feet and hands while she was being paddled.

So when a person says normal or typical, do they mean that in their case, or for everyone. For that very reason it’s hard to take an argument as credible when they are vague when mentioning “typical” occurrences.

I’ve seen gonzo porn where women are in scenes that could be considered violent, most certainly rough, and on occasion degrading and a question I have is how would someone viewing porn discern women that are consenting to what is happening to them from those that aren’t.

For example, there’s one performer currently in the industry that has been in some rough scenes; Lexi Belle. She has a scene on Brazzer’s Pornstar Punishment website, and, Kink.com. If I recall correctly she had an interview where she said that she liked performing those types of scenes. One could say that she does it because of something in her past, and I might be convinced of that, if it weren’t for the fact she’s been in productions by Wicked, Vivid, and Digital Playground.

Two other examples that come to mind are Sinn Sage and Sasha Grey. I’m sure others can be found too.

….Perhaps I’m missing something about the type of porn being discussed.
After all, from a anti-porn proponent’s point of view, how are they determining kink from violent [if you get my meaning].

I think the important thing is that if a performer doesn’t feel that what they are doing, or about to do, is right from them then they should freely be able to walk away confident. I seriously don’t think that turning down one job will (or should) ruin their chances of finding another.

Hopefully I made a point and didn’t ramble.

Julie Meadows on Thu, 8th Dec 2011 11:39 am


I think it is useful to hear different perspectives–even Gail Dines’.

When she talks, she talks about “gonzo” porn. Then in another breath she talks about how a high-end company degrades women with their high-end product. This isn’t a review of Gail Dines but a focus on the few companies women come across when getting into porn that can traumatize them. Gonzo companies like JM Productions and Anabolic and their relationship with agents who will book the female (without going over it with her) based upon “boy/girl/anal” criteria and find they are doing a “private” with Khan Tusion, someone notorious for verbal humiliation, beating, and choking a woman unconscious regardless of her protests. (A “private” being escort work, or prostitution… whatever you want to call it.)

I was talent, so I am capable of reading Gail Dines’ book and finding parallels and hypocrisies and asking my own questions based upon my own experience. Hers is a more complicated position than Shelley Lubben’s. As far as I know she doesn’t use religion to talk pornography. That and she does study the work. She also states very plainly that watching porn does effect her.

It would be nice to hear from some female performers on this topic, even if anonymously. Jenna Jameson from How to Make Love Like a Porn Star “Most girls get their first experience in gonzo films–in which they’re taken to a crappy studio apartment in Mission Hills and penetrated in every hole possible by some abusive asshole who thinks her name is Bitch.”

I, for one, would like to know more about these marginalized women within an already marginalized group. I took my two years of gonzo experience and morphed it into something that worked for me, but Max Hardcore was my worst experience. He’s not the worst of them. I certainly don’t want females to not comment here because they’ll feel bullied about it if they do.

I can’t be someone who just knows all I need to know because I have an idea without considering everything. The point of this blog is to uncover complexities and review my own ideas based on new information. It’s never been a platform for only one type of idea, though I have roughly three year’s worth of pro-porn perspective here. I don’t want to be a hypocrite, but I am if I can criticize Gail Dines without reading anything she’s written. She doesn’t outright lie about many things. A lot of it is worth considering.

Michael Whiteacre on Thu, 8th Dec 2011 12:13 pm


That would depend on how one defines “outright lying.”

Of course one must read Dines’ work to critique it; I too have read Dines work. Two books worth. And I, like you, Lydia, have communicated with her former researcher.

Dines’ research methods are flawed, she cites to opinion pieces and anecdotal interviews, and she uses appeals to emotion and insane leaps of logic — such as the thesis implied in the question, what is going to happen when current (male) porn viewers, who are bombarded with seemingly irresistible images of women with their pubic hairs waxed (meant, according to Dines, to replicate the look of underage girls) begin having daughters themselves. Setting aside the most obvious logical flaw — that many men who watch porn today already have daughters — this is not science, this is not sociology, and this is not philosophy — it is fear mongering based on junk science and unproven assumptions. It is, in a word, demagoguery.

Julie Meadows on Thu, 8th Dec 2011 4:29 pm


If you’ve read her work then you know she never states that she is impervious to the porn she has seen. Also, I think Dines’ former researcher is a good example of how frustrated a person can become towards someone who only stresses one side of an issue. She should be frustrated by that. She also has personal experience with Dines to draw from, as I have personal experience as a performer and with people prominent in the pro-porn argument. No one seems to considers the gray area. Most seem too obsessed and consumed by their own goals, but it’s still there and someone should address it.

What to you, Michael, constitutes abuse in the adult industry? I’d like to know your thoughts on that. You quote Maxxx Peters from Whack! Magazine, and I think it’s a brilliant point.

“I for one am glad that pornography is being discussed calmly and intelligently in places like the Cambridge Union, not as an obviously horrible social menace but as a social phenomenon whose impact, positive and negative, should be soberly and rationally analyzed. As a proponent of porn maybe I should appreciate the self-sabotage Lubben inflicted on the opposing argument during the Cambridge debate; maybe I should be glad that Lubben was there to make the anti-porn argument look hysterical and simple-minded. But I’m not, because the debate can not move forward, can not accomplish anything, unless the arguments on both sides evolve, becoming more complex and nuanced as they actually make an impact on each other. That leads, or could lead, to real analysis, and potentially to real answers regarding the nature of pornography, its effects, and its relationship to our culture. Simply repeating the same hackneyed phrases and objections over and over and over will not help to develop the debate; indeed, this is not debating at all, it’s preaching, if not outright filibustering.”

It’s no victory that Lubben fumbled and failed through that debate. It’s unfortunate that she was chosen as a lucid voice for the anti-porn perspective, but it doesn’t help the conversation. It’s becoming clear to me that people who have a personal agenda don’t ask questions but rather feed an endless stream of information without any openness or contemplation about alternative perspectives whatsoever. I’d like to know anyone’s thoughts on what constitutes “abusive porn” and why.

Anthony Kennerson on Thu, 8th Dec 2011 4:45 pm


The main issue that I have with Gail Dines, outside of everything Michael has said, is not only that she distorts and exploits the most extreme and most baroque forms of porn as if they are the dominant form, but that she uses the likes of Max Hardcore — how unabashedly horrid his vision may be to most of us — as a club to beat on the overwhelming majority of porn that is far less violent, if not non-violent.

It’s kinda of hard to say that you are only against “violent porn” and then in the next breath you call a mere blowjob “throat rape” or declare simple anal sex to be the most disturbing and offensive act ever.

The only real difference between Gail Dines and Shelley Lubben is that one uses fundamentalist Christian rhetoric while the other uses more secular “feminist” rhetoric. But, they both sell pretty much the same hymnal: men are sexual predators who need the power of the State (either in the name of “God” or “equality”) to control their baser instincts; and sex should only be redeemed by the narrowest of justifications (reproduction for Christian marriage for Lubben; monogamous heterosexual female “intimacy” for Dines).

This is NOT in any way an apologia for the manipulation of power that some in porn will use to trick some performers into potentially dangerous situations. In any renegade industry, you will have your share of outlaws who will use the medium of porn to project their worst fantasies or nightmares.

The point here is not that there shouldn’t be any accountability on the part of porn producers in the treatment of their talent. The point is that Gail Dines is simply not the person who should be the judge, jury, and executioner, because she does not respect in any way the rights and responsibilities of porn performers. She, like Lubben, simply uses them as props for her sex-hating propaganda.

Anthony

Michael Whiteacre on Thu, 8th Dec 2011 5:18 pm


@Lydia – Abuse in porn is to be defined the same way as abuse elsewhere within the independent contractor/contractee paradigm. Porn is sex work, but it is not prostitution for all the reasons enumerated in the Freeman decision. It is a business — part of the entertainment business.

A performance is a contract to perform. Both sides have duties. And both sides must consent — with informed consent — to the nature and parameters the contract demands. Then, both sides must perform the terms of the contract.

Abuse is a violation of the express and implied terms of the contract. Implied terms include common-law elements which cannot be waived (for reasons of public policy).

For instance, people doing work for another have a right to be kept safe from harms not intrinsic to and foreseeable within the context of the job.

Performers assume the risk that, since there is a window period for any STI test, that they might contract an STI. Performers do NOT assume the risk that a producer will demand sex before he pays them money their are owed.

Performers assume the risk of “wear and tear” — such as soreness from friction or physical activity. Performers do NOT assume the risk of being manhandled or groped or intentionally injured beyond the previously agreed-upon requirements of the scene.

I am an advocate of the informed consent model — for sex and sex work of all kinds, including pornography.

However, in the rad fem anti-porn construct, all women are victims who cannot possibly give informed consent, because to be a woman among men is to ALWAYS live in fear of being raped. Therefore, they are, ipso facto, forced and intimidated by the patriarchy into submitting to the whims, demands and terms of men (who are, at heart, all rapists).

Allow me to quote our friend Ernest Greene on the subject:

“Radical feminism is to feminism what National Socialism is to socialism – a deliberate false-flagging of a totalitarian ideology as liberationist. 

In other words, a big lie.”

Lydia, I fundamentally reject Ms. Dines’ premises, therefore I see no value in watching her talk in circles in service of these premises — even if her methods and logic were consistent in service of her flawed premises. And they are not.

I also refer you to our friend Nina Hartley’s comments in The Devil and Shelley Lubben, and elsewhere. I also refer you to Jessi Fischer’s arguments against Ms. Dines.

Finally, as to whether or not Ms. Dines claims she is affected by violent pornography, that’s akin to Shelley Lubben clamming she cries for the women trapped in porn. How is Ms. Dines affected? Saddened? Outraged? She certainly doesn’t admit that it has warped her otherwise healthy view of sex or porn. And if she makes that claim it is up to her to demonstrate her previous worldview, and compare it to her new dysfunction.

Then fact is, despite her protestations, she is incapable of coming clean and admitting that there is NO porn that she would find acceptable — violent or not. She was offered the chance to help conceive “feminist approved porn” and apparently brushed it off.

She has no credibility as an academic, or as anything else, as far as I’m concerned. Reading her work is a case study in how NOT to do a case study.

Michael Whiteacre on Thu, 8th Dec 2011 5:25 pm


And finally, regarding the “alternative perspectives” you cherish: propaganda, false premises and faulty analysis do not a valid perspective make.

If one’s “perspective” is that, since G-d speaks to me and tells me I am his chosen anti-porn warrior, I can do no wrong even when I am lying, exaggerating and distorting truth, it is invalid. “The ends justify the means” is not a perspective, it is an alibi.

Similarly, Dines’ disingenuous demagoguery is not a perspective any more than Goebbels’ propaganda was.

Valid perspectives embrace and rely upon valid theories. Valid theories explain all the known facts — they don’t cherry pick factoids to make emotional appeals.

Julie Meadows on Thu, 8th Dec 2011 5:36 pm


Thank you for your input.

Brian on Thu, 8th Dec 2011 6:47 pm


I’m not sure whether or not I’m contributing anything new, but, at the very least this will be a different perspective.

In my ideal porn industry the director, or whomever, would sit down with the performer(s) and discuss what will be going on in the scene, and what is expected of the performer to do. Perhaps going over alternatives in case the performer was weary of one thing or another about the scene. The scene would not be shot until everyone was on the same page. With that in mind, abuse in the porn industry would constitute the use of deceit and coercion in order to get a performer to participate in a scene.

When you get down to the primal core of an anti-porn argument all you find is that there is an idea of what sex is; anything else must be wrong, abusive, etc. Everyone that disagrees is lying, deceived, etc.

I think the only reason why the anti-porn movement still exists is because their argument caters to like-minded individuals that would never watch porn themselves and just take second-hand information as if it were fact. These people then, feeling they are contributing to a worthy cause, throw tons of money at said cause to keep it going.

Dawson on Thu, 8th Dec 2011 9:10 pm


Okay, there is something everyone here seems to be missing.

Not only is the Anti-porn “movement” a business (you can have a million dollar salary while running a non-profit organization), but the Anti-porn people are themselves Pornographers for the anti-porn reading and lecture and church audience.

It is “puritanical pornography” disguised as Dogma. And that is all it is, period (.) !

Preachers can have some of the most sexually explicit mouths in telling their congregations exactly what sex acts are going to send them straight to Hell, so much so these people then go home all hot and bothered and screw like rabbits. I’ve asked someone to dig up the Psychology studies on this phenomena.

There will be anti-porn audience people sitting in a bathroom masturbating to Gail Dines book. People used to use books before there were ever any magazines with pictures.

Guys in the audience listening to Shelley Lubben preach, then go home hot and bothered and screw their wives till their ears bleed pretending they are screwing Shelley or one of her ex-porn stars she parades in front of them and manipulates into telling all the explicit details. But first, before you go home, pass the collection plate.

The Anti-sex Sermon is the staple of the “Anti(s)” Confidence Artists because they are selling Anti-porn Pornography to an audience who is paying them good money to listen to it. Excuse me, is that a Rolex God buys the Anti-porn evangelists? “God takes care of those who take care of themselves.”

Case in point. Mainstream Religious Con Artist Pastor Ted Haggard. Ted is still a FOX News Network Consultant as a Fallen & Recovered Religion Expert. And he loves the narcissistc attention he still gets.

Ted Haggard was founder and pastor of the New Life Church and founder of the Association of Life-Giving Churches; and was the Leader of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) from 2003 until 2006 until he got outed by a male prostitute for not only being gay but for getting the male prostitute to buy him crystal meth so he could have marathon gay sex (and if I offend anybody gay, you are an adult and should know better about the points I’m making are not to offend you).

But Pastor Ted Haggard made his fortune off being Hellfire and Brimstone Anti-homosexual. Which is exactly why the male prostitute outed him once he realized his steady “John” was pastor Ted Haggard.

And why are so many “Anti-homosexual” Bitchy Queens like Ted Haggard posing as Conservative Republicans. They know their Market. Always, always, always follow the Money.

Shelley Lubben and Gail Dines can only aspire to be the kind of National Hypocrites pastor Ted Haggard was, and still is for the FOX News Network who solicits the delusional religious right Vote for the Republican Party.

The Anti-porn People could give a real rats ass about ever talking to you or anybody sensibly because You are not making them any Money. None of them are any more sincere than ol’ pastor Ted Haggard was. It’s just their God damned Meal Ticket (and I truly mean God Condemn Them for their Hypocrisy when they read this).

That Shelley Lubben even went to that Debate, shows how unsmart and unsophisticated and bush-league she really is. But like any Predatory Animal I expect her to somewhat learn from her mistakes.

One of these days the same thing that happened to ol’ Teddy boy is going to happen to Shelley Lubben and she will be caught with her pants down around her ankles while holding (or sucking) a smoking gun and probably doing a line of white powder in the picture when the story hits the press. She won’t be the first and she won’t be the last.

Somebody should publish a book with all the press accounts of Preachers and Priests who have been disgraced and even gone to prison. Some trying to hire undercover cops as Hitmen to bump off their enemies. Doesn’t anybody ever watch truTV (the old Court TV channel)? Prayer didn’t help any of these Sons of Bitches so why should they insist organized peer pressure prayer be statutorily mandated for kids in school? It is all just about trying to usurp Power and Control and about making Money. {ed. besides any kid can pray in private at any time in any school any where–God don’t need your hands folded and your eyes closed}

Religion is the World’s Second oldest profession and the World’s Biggest Con Game.

And if you think you should respect other people’s beliefs who do not Respect You, just remember, their favorite passage from the Bible is “He who is not with me, is against me,” which means anybody who does not kowtow to them is fair game “in Jesus’ name” for their Backstabbing. And there is a “belief” you better respect with your eyes wide open.

Brian on Thu, 8th Dec 2011 11:53 pm


Well maybe we were giving them the benefit of the doubt for being philanthropists…(?)

(HA! Yeah, right)

Dawson on Fri, 9th Dec 2011 4:52 am


Here’s your religious philanthropists hiding in plain sight.
http://www.apocalypseandarmageddon.org/forum/?page_id=4/the-devil-made-me-do-it/satan-the-adversary/

Anthony Kennerson on Fri, 9th Dec 2011 9:01 am


Refocusing away from Dines and religion back to the Hardcore documentary for a bit…

What fascinates me about “Felicity” is that she was hired by the documentary creators to supposedly get into a Max Hardcore shoot, yet neither she nor the doc creators seem to do any research from other porn girls about their experiences with him. Don’t you think that with a rep that he has, that other girls would be more than open to speak their opinion of him and dissuade her from attempting to shoot for him?? Was “Felicity” so much in a hurry to want to shoot for Hardcore because she really wanted to experience him, or was it merely due to the documentary creators paying her to get in as part of their plan to “entrap” Hardcore as part of their antiporn propaganda campaign??

And…let’s not forget the fact that even after “Felicity” agreed to do the shoot, the doc creators intervened and pulled her, so the shoot never even happened. In other words, we have no proof other than speculation and hearsay that anything would go out of control and that the scene would get out of hand.

Of course, other girls might not have the protection of a documentary crew to pull them out of a potentially dangerous situation…but then again, most girls would probably know enough about Max Hardcore’s particular fetish not to get involved with him to begin with if they weren’t interested. Word of mouth and reputation tend to travel fast in the porn underground.

The other thing that interested me was the involvement of the “agent”, Richard, in all of this. I know that porn talent agencies are mostly paid by production companies to attract talent to their videos, but I would wonder what motivation would there be for an agent to openly distort and lie about the nature of a shoot to their talent. I’m pretty sure that there is money traveling under the table, but not even Max Hardcore is that rich to attempt to get an agent to manipulate a grown woman into doing a scene that includes slapping and gagging..and potentially worse. Max Hardcore may be an asshole, but at least he’s honest and open about it.

More than likely, most women would have had a plan to walk out the door if they felt any bit of objection…but because “Felicity” was more bound to the doc creators to push the envelope and see what happens, she went with the “flow’ and went through with it.

So, who’s more to blame for this manipulation: Max Hardcore….or the Hardcore producers for having her go through this??

All I will conclude with is a quote from one of my all time favorite journalists, Linda Ellerbee: “Some say ‘the camera never lies’…but people can lie with a camera.” What you see isn’t necessarily what is true…pay attention as much to who’s behind the camera as who’s in front of it.

Anthony

Michael Whiteacre on Fri, 9th Dec 2011 12:54 pm


Anthony, your view of agents may be a bit sunny, but moreover, it is missing a key element: They are, more than anything else, wranglers. Wrangling talent — in any sphere of entertainment: acting, music, etc… — can often be like herding cats. Production requires the use of psychology. As a producer, it was job #1 for me to get the leading lady out of her make-up chair by assuring her that she looked great!

I any case, for wranglers, entertainment is a churn and burn business. There are just so many hours in a day, and either the performer makes it easy on them or he/she makes it difficult. Few agents solicit for talent (although more do today than in years past) and most talent, particularly those who become successful, both actively seek out the opportunity to be in the business AND canvas agents based upon their roster. Performers with too many issues fall by the wayside, performers with more of a go-getter attitude (and a sharper business acumen) get ahead. And, along the way, it is certainly not unheard of for agents to finesse the details of situation in order to get the performer to “go along.” Anyone who’s ever bought a used car will be familiar with the technique. They don’t say, “look at all the coursing on the body!”, they say, “It’s got a lot of power” or whatever.

Talent agents (mainstream and adult) are salesmen — constantly “selling” producers on this performer or another, and constantly selling performers on the career opportunity of working with a particular producer or director. Quite often, agents are no-nothings, relying exclusively on the “buzz” they’ve heard. Ofttimes itl;s based upon whose check clear quickest. This is the nature of self-interest.

As an director and editor, I can tell you that what you’re not shown in a movie or documentary is just as important as what you’re shown. I believe my documentary output is honest, but it nonetheless expresses my worldview in that it portrays answers to the questions I asked on the subjects I chose, etc… (many of the most revelatory moments, however, were completely spontaneous and unexpected, however). That said, I’ve re-cut the damn thing several times after facts and perspectives I uncovered did not fit my outline. That is my duty as a storyteller, and it reflects the nature of a dynamic enterprise like a movie that I love so much.

But it wouldn’t have been possible if I’d been on a tight schedule to shoot and edit it. As a filmmaker and researcher, I am reluctant to jump to the conclusion of ‘dark motives’ in the case of “Hardcore.” One must remember that 1) the filmmakers were fish out of water, and 2) openly observing an event like production alters it. People are aware of the fact that they’re being filmed, and they perform for the camera. It’s inevitable. And both Max Hardcore himself, and the way he ran his productions, lend themselves to a sense of dread and foreboding. His shoots were not bright and sunny experiences (few are, but his less than most), and he was always far more palatable “out of character.”

Michael Whiteacre on Fri, 9th Dec 2011 12:55 pm


*corrosion* not *coursing* Damned auto-correct.

Julie Meadows on Fri, 9th Dec 2011 1:16 pm


From a commenter on FaceBook:

“Interesting points, and I’d agree about the motivations of Max Hardcore and his ilk. He’s obviously taking revenge for the fact that no women would even speak to him without being paid.

But one thing to bear in mind about that documentary is that the producers went out of their way to find a performer who fitted in with their idea of a ‘victim’ and then deliberately fed her to the most abusive bottom-feeders in the industry (out of every director and producer out there, she gets to meet Hardcore and Rob Black? How convenient). The whole thing was deliberately set up to feed into an anti-porn agenda, and the only loser was the poor girl who was thrown in the deep end.”

My response:

“I would completely agree on a few things, but I also had to “pay my dues” by going through a string of gonzo companies. Agents want to get the talent work asap, and the more mainstream companies that shoot features book people in advance. Fast money in porn means working for gonzo companies. This female was only in town for a week, too, so she’d be taken to the typical places.

I think what they failed to do was show every gonzo company she was taken to, and I feel the documentary filmmakers got inside her head too much by constantly focusing on her daughter and her childhood. For that kind of work you have to focus and compartmentalize your priorities. For that reason they may have done more harm than good. It’s be like going with a relative to a shoot. A police officer or boxer–someone with as extreme a job–is going to shift into a different personality when their home vs. when they’re at work. One could criticize that, but it is what it is. By inserting themselves into the Max shoot, they probably made her more nervous than she would have been. Less nervous she might have had the presence of mind to not introduce herself naked (for one), and then insist on talking about the terms. It’s a job. There was no reason why she shouldn’t have been able to sit down and tell him what she would and wouldn’t do.

But this gets into another topic because I have my own Max Hardcore story. It’s complicated, but people like him use soothing tactics to make the scene happen and I have a million criticisms I can’t put in a FB comment.”

His response:

“Julie, I don’t doubt that for a minute. I would never dream of defending the likes of Max Hardcore, and I know what you say about breaking in via gonzo is true – though of course, not all gonzo is of the Max Hardcore style.

But I do know how many people the documentary company talked to in Britain before finding the right ‘victim’, and that they were pretty responsible for who she met out in LA – her visit was a pre-planned one on behalf of the producers, not something she had arranged. After all, if she’d been taken to meet with people like Jane Hamilton instead of Max Hardcore, they would’nt have been able to make the documentary that fitted their agenda. Suffice to say that she was victimised by them as much as by anyone else.”

Me:

“Good to know. And then that raises the existing issue about non-porn people and how they prey on industry workers. Do you have resource material about the doc crew? Maybe a link you can direct me towards?”

His final response:

“Julie – unfortunately, no. I used to have a lot of friends in the UK industry, including a couple who had worked with the woman in question, and on a couple of separate occasions heard stories about who the producers had approached. Having dealt with British documentary makers covering the adult industry myself from time to time, nothing I was told surprised me. Can I prove it though? No.”

I would have picked apart just the important stuff, but it would have been too tedious. At any rate, talking beyond Gail Dines is refreshing since I would assume people know my mind about the extremes of both perspectives. Thank you, Anthony.

TJen on Sat, 24th Dec 2011 11:26 am


Hi Julie, in your blog you write:«She says she doesn’t want to do just anything and she’s nervous, but she’s getting ready for the scene, and Marcos has to be somewhat submissive for the conversation in order to not put her off, yet the idea is to shoot the scene as hard as possible. All the while the agent knows she doesn’t want to be there, but justifies it because it’s a normal circumstance “as far as he’s concerned”–as if he really didn’t fill
her in on what kind of work she’d be doing once she arrived in L.A. The only person who seems conscientious of her personal welfare is the documentary filmmaker, but while he’s trying to be influential in her favor, as an onlooker he can’t insert himself too much until things go too far at the end.»

«Gonzo companies like JM Productions and Anabolic and their relationship with agents who will book the female (without going over it with her) based upon “boy/girl/anal” criteria and find they are doing a “private” with Khan Tusion, someone notorious for verbal humiliation, beating, and choking a woman unconscious regardless of her protests. (A “private” being escort work, or prostitution… whatever you want to call it.)»

«but Max Hardcore was my worst experience. He’s not the worst of them. I certainly don’t want females to not comment here because they’ll feel bullied about it if they do.»

These statements puzzle me since, in Michael Whiteacre’s video «Shelley and the Devil», you denied knowledge and ANY awareness of violence; coercion, beating, humiliation within the porn industry. I understand your reservations about Shelley–I too now feel some of her statements are general and absolutists. But why do you dismiss Shelley’s accusations of porn as being potentially violent, when you raise those same concerns yourself here in your blog?

Julie Meadows on Sat, 24th Dec 2011 12:16 pm


@TJen–That is a very good question.

I wasn’t aware of it at the time of filming Michael’s exposé. I hadn’t encountered things like that as an actress, personally, and only started to look at my experience with Max Hardcore as something that falls within the lines of what these people are talking about, around a month or so ago.

The danger is in such generalizations, which Lubben and others do without the kind of clarification that comes from pointing out what these things mean in greater detail. You won’t find out from her and others what it is they are actually talking about. Like a newspaper astrologer vs. a person with real psychic ability, they rely on generalizations so that they can make money without really affecting the system. I’m just discovering all of this. I’m just starting to ask questions about what it is they really mean.

TJen on Sat, 24th Dec 2011 2:04 pm


Now that you know what you know, and are able to contextualise your experience with performers such as Max H, do you think it’s acceptable that you appear and re-appear (since people will continue watching that video, and rely on such insider truths to formulate their own views about the industry) in Michael’s video saying that you had no negative, let alone abusive experiences in porn?

This begs the question, how many other actresses experience abuse in the industry, but because they don’t (for whatever reason, be it lack of education/limited vision as a result of their social status or economic background, low self-esteem etc.) have the proper framework through which to view the abuse, so they dismiss it entirely, and it goes unnamed/uncalled out.

Isn’t Shelley simply calling out and naming humiliations and abuses now that she has the proper framework to do so–in her case, sobriety, a realisation her self worth, her lovability?

(I understand M.W.’s view is that she is an attention seeking liar trying to get rich and famous by exposing the horrors within the porn industry. She is melodramatic and over the top. I do not doubt that she sometimes exaggerates or embellishes the truth to serve her own anti-porn agenda, or that she even uses people to further her cause, or that she has alcohol relapses. I do not doubt that she still desperately seeks attention(but what porn actor or entertainer for that matter does not like attention?). Does ANY of this automatically render everything she says about the violence she experienced and that may go on in the industry is false? a lie? I don’t believe so).

Both Shelley’s video and Michael’s Shelley thrashing were one-sided and entirely self-serving. Just very disappointing.

For the record, I’m not Christian or even religious and I’m not a radical feminist. Claiming that ALL anti-porn advocates belong to one of these 2 groups is a total generalisation and caricature.

Julie Meadows on Sat, 24th Dec 2011 3:58 pm


“Isn’t Shelley simply calling out and naming humiliations and abuses now that she has the proper framework to do so–in her case, sobriety, a realisation her self worth, her lovability?”

No. I don’t think so. She never names specific people, which is what you do when you really want to help, because the abusers take up a niche group in the industry.

Also, if you consider Michelle Avnti’s experience with Lubben, and that of Kristenye, Mahlia Milian, Brooke Ashley, etc… Lubben is a con artist who saw a way to further maximize off of abusive porn. I consider her a kind of pornographer along the lines of Max Hardcore because her practices are as flawed as theirs. But I hold her more accountable because she’s using the circus illusion of caring to lure already hurt people into yet another trap by forcing them to turn over their possessions, relinquish money they earned, say very damning and irreparable things about their parents, etc… She has a churn ‘em and burn ‘em system just like these gonzo producers, except that these people are already showing up affected by something traumatic that happened to them. By the time they leave her care, they don’t trust anyone. What would you do in that situation? When someone who claims to be Christian hurts you more than someone from porn–someone you’d almost expect to hurt you because of the nature of the business (compared to a Christian organization, for instance)–there isn’t much hope left to be had.

The way she goes on bombastically and calls herself a Rebel Prophet and claims to rescue women who have usually already been out of the industry for awhile on their own, is deplorable. It’s ghastly and perverse. You aren’t privy to some of the things I know about this person. She is a predator.

“Now that you know what you know, and are able to contextualise your experience with performers such as Max H, do you think it’s acceptable that you appear and re-appear (since people will continue watching that video, and rely on such insider truths to formulate their own views about the industry) in Michael’s video saying that you had no negative, let alone abusive experiences in porn?”

My quote from The Devil and Shelley Lubben:

“I understand that she did some movies, but I was in the industry for six years, and I was on 300+ sets. Never once did I see women crying, or vomiting, or being force-fed drugs. I don’t know where she did pornography, but if she performed in L.A. I don’t believe her.”

That is true. I never saw those things. In my experience with Paul Little, I should have walked away, but I didn’t. I agreed to do the scene. I have guilt because of my choice, but he didn’t make me do anything I didn’t agree to. What I am exploring now is something I’m trying to figure out how to articulate, but I will expound on it in the very near future.

What I’m doing now is going through and reading actual performer experiences. Lubben, I feel, has absorbed other women’s experiences and made it her own so that she can maintain herself as the star of Pink Cross Foundation. The six-man gang bang where she says she was raped has been refuted by the director and the man she performed a boy/girl scene with before the gang bang. Guy DeSilva is one of the least aggressive performers I’ve ever worked with. Talking to him about the scene, he was shocked to even hear about it from her perspective because he thought they got along great. Made it sound like they worked together more than a few times. You saw the videos, so I don’t need to quote him from it.

If you’re asking me if I should be removed form Michael’s film because my view is shifting, it’s his film. I’m no longer a partner in it. It’s a photograph in time, and I never say anything that I didn’t mean at that time. Should I ever be interviewed in the future, I might state things differently, but I do not feel Shelley Lubben does a good public service through her racket with Pink Cross Foundation.

I don’t like the extremes of either side. There’s too much grey area, but hopefully I can clarify my thoughts in the immediate future.

If you have more questions, please ask them, but I may be taking a hiatus that lasts a few days after the New Year. Don’t be offended if I don’t respond right away. Happy Holidays!

Tjen on Mon, 26th Dec 2011 12:46 pm


Dear ….Lydia!

yes I get and believe what you say about Lubben’s predatory character. I just wish Lubben’s dishonest and exploitative practices could have been called out and denounced without TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY dismissing some of her POINTS, namely the existence of violence and abuse towards women in the industry. Watching the video leaves the viewer with the impression this doenst happen within the LA porn scene, which is not true.

Regardless, I admire the fact that you are asking questions. You seem like such a caring and beautiful person! Happy Holidays

Michael Whiteacre on Tue, 27th Dec 2011 10:00 am


@Tjen – If there is a violent act perpetrated during an adult production, “the porn industry” is no more to blame than McDonalds is for a fistfight between two fry cooks, or the US Post Office is for a shooting. Lubben tries to make it seem that there is rampant, if not universal, SYSTEMIC abuse. That is a lie.

There are people in this society who have drug issues. People cry at work all the time. I used to work at a law firm in NYC. I saw women (legal secretaries) cry at work — they were really upset. Sometimes it was about something eternal to the workplace other times it was over something one of their co-workers had said or done. I’ve seen fights at different jobs, and also seen people under the influence of drugs in various workplaces. But we don;t say that law firms or video store operators *routinely* encourage or endorse these actions.

Shelley Lubben offers no evidence for her wild claims about how, for example, “drugs are always provided”; that pornographers routinely beat or threaten to beat the “girls”; and that “girls” are being lured to porn sets by pornographers posing as teenage boys online. As Christopher Hitchens once noted, that which is offered without proof can also be dismissed without proof.

sdatim on Wed, 4th Jan 2012 7:51 pm


I wanted to get another female perspective on this so I watched this with my GF and she said afterwards that she had a similar experience as felicity. That she came into the industry saying that she would never do this or do that, but ended up doing things she would never have even *thought* of doing.

She said the dynamics were similar to how they convinced felicity to do more and more, eventually my GF said that she was feeling like Felicity, just “dissociating yourself” from it, and eventually she just felt numb.

I personally have a lot more to say myself, but I’ll just say for now, that prior to watching this I’d heard from talent as well as producers that: “abusive [pornographers] are quickly weeded out, because no one will work for them.” also that “the [adult] industry is like a small high school, if you [are abusive] you don’t last because word gets around. . .”

Sadly, after spending time researching what Lydia and others have posted, I see no objective evidence to support these and similar statements. In other words, for example: Max Hardcore who has been mentioned more than any other as being abusive. and yet he started in, I believe the early *90′s* am I right and is still producing. Is the definition of “weeding out” a 20 year+ period?

Also, Tusion, Black, Everhard and Powers seem to be functioning just fine as producers/talent although there is significant evidence provided by Lydia and others that they are predatory/abusive to a greater or lesser degree.

I find it intriguing that Khan in one scene says he doesn’t want to be filmed nor tell his family the specifics of what he does because “choking a girl to unconsciousness” is “shameful” but in the next scene its “love and romance.” Hmmm. . .

I find it even doubly intriguing that Black and Everhard were nominated for several AVN awards this year including “Hall of Fame” I’m going to assume that this does not indicate they are being “weeded out” anytime soon either. Am I correct?

It is foolish to think with our failing economy and the surge in supply of talent like Nina says, “we don’t have to “force” anyone to do anything since they come by the busload saying ‘pick me.’ ‘no pick me.’” that these producers who have significant financial resources will do anything but continue to be very successful pornographers. because they will have more than a steady stream of talent who desperately needs the money that they have lots of.

Of course, my area of expertise is not in this industry. However, I as a scientist and professional, do not see any support for several assertions made that the industry “self-regulates” when people are manipulative, abusive, dishonest, or predatory. But I’d love to have someone enlighten me as to how this is the case.

Michael Whiteacre on Thu, 5th Jan 2012 9:06 am


@sdatim — Firstly, you are mistaken as to Max Hardcore, Rob Black and Khan Tusion.

1) Max Hardcore’s product from the late 90s into the early 2000s was NOTHING like his milder early to mid 90s work.
2) Max was sent to prison.
3) Max is not currently producing, nor has he since his legal problems began in the mid 2000′s.
4) Khan Tusion was driven out of the industry in 2005 or 2006.
5) Rob Black was sent to prison
6) Rob Black’s current output (thus far) is NOTHING like his older stuff. He’s shooting superhero parodies now.

Secondarily, you do not correctly distinguish between detestable product and abuse. One cannot conclude that all participants, or even most participants in “extreme”: pornography are abused or coerced simply because some performers got in over their heads. There are MANY MANY performers who enjoy extreme, kinky, rough, fill-in-the-blank sexual situations. Some do not, but apply for the jobs anyway because of the money. When they do, they are essentially lying to themselves, lying to the producers and lying to the viewers.

There are also instances where performers are genuinely tricked and/or abused. That is disgraceful.

There are a small number of low-end agents and managers — presumably like the guy in that British documentary — who don’t give a shit one way or the other, and just want to get the girls booked for a scene they can take a commission on. That too is disgraceful.

However, the performer always has the choice to say, “NO, I’m leaving.”

In reference pornographers who, in “our failing economy” will continue to “have more than a steady stream of talent who desperately needs the money that they have lots of.” That is a nonsensical argument. Are you suggesting that the laws of supply and demands be suspended for sex work? Are you suggesting that an industry should shy away from prospective members who MIGHT be desperate for money — in a failing economy, no less? And finally, do you not understand that EVERY line of business takes advantage of — exploits — resources? Businesses MUST get the maximum bang out of every buck. People who need money take jobs they prefer to do less than other jobs. That’s not economic duress, that’s the market. If you have more skills you will have more options.

Does the industry have bad apples? Occasionally, yes. But I don’t see a producer who connivingly convinces and cajoles (manipulation) an inexperienced performer into doing more work than she had planned for the money offered as different from any other employer who takes advantage — legally — of an eager or generous novice in any industry. The fact that it involves sex, which is ‘invasive’, seems to be the distinguishing characteristic in all these analyses. I reject this because sexuality IS the product in pornography.

I know a VERY famous singer / songwriter who always “works up” his new material with his current band of the moment. The band contributes to those songs — the oppositions and the arrangements. But when the songs are completed, they are copyrighted in the famous guy’s name alone. Why? Because if these musicians want that high-paying touring job backing up a legend, they don’t rock the boat. If they want a hunk of that copyright, they can sue, lose their gig, and possibly prevail in court.

Some prospective performers can get their heads around all of this (including the invasive and possibly desensitizing nature of the work), and are suited or equipped for sex work — and others cannot. This who cannot routinely LEAVE the adult industry quietly after one or two scenes. No one forces them to stay.

Are there people who are not psychologically equipped to successfully navigate a career in sex work? Certainly. But there are people who sign up for lots of strenuous or stressful jobs who later find that they can’t cut it. What happens? They quit. Lesson learned.

What did your GF do?

Did anyone ever literally force her to be on a set? Or did she allow herself to be convinced when the promise of greater remuneration was dangled before her.

Perhaps she has difficulty coming to terms with what she chose to do for money? You or I can’t judge anyone; people do what they have to do. But we all have to take personal responsibility for our actions — even, and especially, those that didn’t work out so great for us.

Michael Whiteacre on Thu, 5th Jan 2012 9:19 am


On a personal note, let me add there have been LOTS of times where I chose to do things I didn’t prefer to do because I needed the money. No one forced me. I ALLOWED MYSELF to be convinced because I wanted that money, or that extra money for going a step further. I once disappointed someone I was in a relationship with O MUCH by my choice to perform a certain job (and thus be unavailable to see her) that it ended up dooming our relationship. It was not my employer’s fault, it was my own. Even though he was well aware of how much that young oman was going to be disappointed — it was his job to ask.

I made a choice, and I learned a lesson.

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