I took a break from this blog back in June of this year. It was a bizarre time…

I can understand why anyone, if they are going to write about pornography, would stick to only the lightest subject matter. Unless you enjoy being attacked, it’s best not to rock the boat. I started writing about light things, but the moment I started digging into things that seemed questionable, it invited seedy people into my life. Writing about anti-porn people made life complicated. It seemed helpful at the time, but it quickly turned into a very weird undertaking that focused too much on winning every argument and making the right precision digs at just the right moment. After awhile, both sides started to look really silly, to me, and incapable of stepping back to evaluate the delicate points each could make and be correct, in their own way. Working together is how we build a better world; not by constantly fighting for or against sweeping generalizations.

I took a break, and during that time, started to really consider the harms and harmful people in the adult industry–not just the anti-porn people who seem to lie and prey on talent, but also harmful pornographers and what constitutes harmful pornography. By defending porn on the whole, I was defending people I don’t actually support; people who benefit from a very flawed business model and use predatory tactics to make money and justify traumatizing people under the veil of “consent”. It was enough to inspire me to write again, but it has only invited even seedier people into my life… of course. Arguing with pornographers and getting harassed is really the best use of my time? Why do I bother?

And you know, it doesn’t matter that I think I’m right; everyone thinks they’re right. Did I betray my friend? If you look at it from her perspective, yes, because she feels that way. If you look at it from mine, she betrayed me months before but I forgave her and allowed the friendship to proceed. But it doesn’t matter, because once someone decides to start dropping virtual bombs, it becomes a war that goes nowhere, yet can go on forever. What’s the next step? Litigation? So you can be even further tied to someone you don’t like? It’s like purposely hitting someone with your car just because they’re being a jerk on the road. Why would you want to spend the next hour, week, month investing your personal time in that way? I could post a slew of implicating and damning things about a number of people here, but I don’t want to invest myself in that way. The goal is to help, not look obsessed with obscure people.

I’m going to have to step back and reevaluate my humanitarian instincts and see where they might be better invested. I feel they are lost on adult industry conversation and most of the people tied to it, at least as far as this blog is concerned.

I don’t regret the women I’ve met who got away from the Pink Cross Foundation and any help I’ve been able to extend their way. And I’m happy to have expressed that even harmful pornographers are people, too. The anti’s completely leave men in porn out of their “help” equation, and that, in my opinion, is a terrible flaw.

I won’t say good-bye, just “see ya later.” And I’ll have to just be flattered by negative posts about me. After all, if you spend that much time thinking about me, it means you care.

Oh, and before I forget, Happy New Year!!!

The reposting of this article is allowed only with express written permission from © Julie Meadows Entertainment.

I wrote recently saying that I wouldn’t attach my ex-friend’s name to this website with any negativity because we have a lot of positive experiences together. Obviously, Monica Foster sees that as a sign that she can name-call and accuse me and my husband of things that are untrue, just because I have been friendly with Sean Tompkins and am friends with Michael Whiteacre. All of the following is forcing me to press charges against her, though I have made valiant attempts to remind her that I’m not her enemy–even texting her that I was worried after reading some of the things you are about to see.

I’d like to preface this by saying that my husband, Doug, has never been attached to the porn industry. He is not a pimp, nor has he ever been. He doesn’t do drugs and is in no way a “sleeper cell terrorist.” He’s an innocent bystander in a fight I do not understand.

I’d also like to add that I have never been bullied in my life. At times when someone did try to bully me, they had the brass to do it to my face; not over the internet, not in another state. Without any clear indication about what exactly it is I did to her, these are the texts she attached to mine and my husband’s name on December 17th, 2011; a day when I had not been online because I was carefully crafting a woman’s story about her recollections of Shelley Lubben under the “care” of Pink Cross Foundation:

I have been given no indication what it is exactly that I’ve done, only insinuations based upon my friendship with Michael Whiteacre and my civility with Sean Tompkins when he blogs about things that matter to me. I do not condone cyberbullying, stalking, or anything of the kind. Going after me for being kind to Sean because he was integral in taking down Porn Wiki Leaks when he doesn’t post wikis on people, is like me being angry at Mike South because he is nice to Monica even though she has clearly declared me her enemy. Why would he insert himself into a situation that is none of his business? How many people know that Monica kicked off her feud with Sean by posting a site called “Field Slave Revolt!” and talked about Sean’s kids? You don’t do that. You don’t talk about someone’s kids in issues that do not involve them. How can I get involved when the one person who should have sympathy for including innocent family members in an online feud is now doing it to other people?

And she’s doing it to my husband, and has mentioned my being a mother a number of times.

And now am I to infer that by her mentioning this Frank and Dion–two people I do not know–in connection with me, that she wishes they’d kill me? How am I supposed to take that, exactly?

A number of days ago she erected a hate site dedicated to Michael Whiteacre here. Yesterday she posted the flowing pictures:

Clearly a bus, in both pictures, is running over me. In the first, it’s running over me, industry writer and director, Will Ryder, and Diane Duke of Free Speech Coalition. On the far righthand side you can see Cindi Loftus of LukeIsBack.com, with an iron weight about to fall on her head. In the second picture it has flattened her image entirely.

And who is the “superhero” standing next to Monica on the right? Desi Foxx, the same person Monica refers to as being cyberbullied with “death photos” back before Porn Wiki Leaks became what it was. I saw one of those photos, and it was disgusting.

Look at the careful symbolisms in the picture: 2012, Jesus, Shelley Lubben, etc… I suppose I should feel flattered that she devotes so much time towards thinking about me, but I’m just sad because it appears she is deeply disturbed and needs professional help.

This is how you treat someone who has only been nice to you? My response to what was going on Decenmber 17th:

@MonicaFoster What the hell is going on?? I haven’t even been online today.

@TRPWL @MonicaFoster @mrwhiteacre Guys, stop this nonsense. It’s just too weird. Too, too weird.

@MonicaFoster People do care. You just go too far. I know you texted me to “f*ck off”, but I’m here if you need me. Seriously.

Yes, the “bitch” in today’s onslaught cared even after she slandered my husband.

And the “sensitive” information in the emails regarding “The Devil and Shelley Lubben”? My personal address and directions to my house. That’s it. She wants a reason to out my personal information and hurt me as a way to hurt Michael Whiteacre and Sean Tompkins. Thank you, Monica, for proving me wrong about you, and everyone else right.

This is what happens when you speak out against Pink Cross Foundation and don’t viciously attack Monica Foster’s enemies when you’re her friend. Monica has allied herself with people who are malicious and use religion to justify being evil to people.

People have contacted me about Shelley Lubben. I didn’t chase them down through MySpace. I didn’t ask Kristenye to get in touch with me. She contacted me of her own free will.

If you are being cyberbullied, don’t just take it. Ignore it when you can, but if it gets worse, do something about it, because the moment you show kindness, these people will go after you harder. No one’s family should be drug into any of this. Innocent people are just that–innocent.

Evidently, not only is it a bad idea to get into porn right now for financial reasons, it is also a bad idea because there are fringe super fans who claim to be done, yet can’t stop talking about it and will hate you just for not understanding their neurosis.

This just in–Sean texted Monica last night (below).

He doesn’t say he’s going to kill her or what “bad” is (multiple lawsuits, maybe?), but he does say he’ll leave her alone if she leaves me alone. Obviously that’s not an option.

The reposting of this article is allowed only with express written permission from © Julie Meadows Entertainment.

According The Domains’ article, “ICM Registry Suspends TM Domains Including BusinessWeek.xxx, cnbc.xxx, VerizonWireless.xxx, WashingtonPost.xxx” as part of their effort to prevent the cybersquatting of trademarked names. The article quotes Stuart Lawley from a press release regarding the decision:

“ICM Registry has raised the bar on responsible registry operations and we intend to maintain the highest standards. We will not tolerate nefarious conduct and will exercise our right to take appropriate action when we detect widespread repeat patterns of cyber-squatting activity. Would-be cyber-squatters are on notice neither ICM Registry nor the .xxx community will be complicit in the theft or abuse of intellectual property. ICM takes a stand to facilitate user choice and parental control, protect the privacy, security, and consumer rights of consenting adults, fight child abuse images, and protect intellectual property,” said Lawley.

The article ends with its author, Michael H. Berkens writing:

I think this is an unprecedented move by a Registry.

Personally I’m not aware of a Registry pre-emptively suspending domain names even those that seem to be clear trademark infringing domain names.

In previous launches some TM domains actually went to Land Rush auctions and sold for big bucks and we questioned why registries should profit from the premium sale of TM domains as in the case of Toyota.me which sold for $90,000

Also interesting is Tompkins’ observation:

Explain this to me like I’m 6 years old. If DOTXXX isnt gonna allow “blatant cybersquatting” like CNBC.XXX then why push the schools and other educational institutions to buy their name? Why not just block it from the start? Is Mr Lawley saying MichiganState.xxx isn’t good enough to block but Verizon is?

Here’s an article from The Michigan Daily on Michigan State protectively buying up their urls.

Could this be more a response to some legal threat than anything conscionable on the part of Lawley and his ICM Registry? We know here what a tough time schools are having. Is Lawley so shrewd a businessman that he is aware of it, too?

And I’d just like to go over this statement by Lawley again:

Would-be cyber-squatters are on notice neither ICM Registry nor the .xxx community will be complicit in the theft or abuse of intellectual property.

What “.XXX community” is he talking about? The domains he sold before the actual adult community was allowed to even engage the Sunrise Period for registration? Before even the vote to allow the sTLD was awarded by ICANN in March 2011? Could he be referring the “.XXX” community that never wanted his sTLD designation in the first place?

From Elliot’s Blog, quoted by Diane Duke during the 2011 inaugural XBIZ EU Summit in London:

I just learned that an additional batch of .XXX domain names recently went online, and they are owned by Frank Schilling’s Name Administration. These include some of the best .XXX domain names, and the back story is interesting. According to Schilling, “they were actually purchased in January (at Domainfest) before the contract was awarded. It was a huge risk buying names that didn’t exist.” (The list of .XXX names Schilling acquired is listed below).

Although the exact purchase price was not disclosed, I understand it was seven figures and it was an all cash deal.

This shrewd business decision made by Schilling is another example of his foresight in the domain space. By taking a risk on .XXX, he could have ended up owning non-existent domain names had the extension not been approved. Now, he owns a chunk of significantly valued domain names, since these are some of the best possible .XXX domain names.

The reposting of this article is allowed only with express written permission from © Julie Meadows Entertainment.

Porn vs. Mainstream is a big deal to Gail Dines. Pornographers might as well be walking right up to consumer doorsteps and throwing pictures directly in people’s faces. But, in a way, I guess they do; via the internet.

Well, it’s not just the internet anymore. I mentioned this in my last post, but I’d like to highlight it here. .XXX ads on the Discovery Channel? On the side of a bus? On a speedboat?

“We’re going to spend in the first year, between now and March[?], we’re spending three million dollars on promoting the space. You may have seen full page adverts in the L.A. Times and the Financial Times. We’re carrying ads, you can go see them today on the front page, clearly labeled .XXX; Major League Baseball–MLB.com–in the United States; ESPN; Time.com; places that won’t normally carry adult adverts are carrying clearly identified .XXX ads. We launched two commercials in the last week; first are on YouTube. One already got [?] three million hits. The one we launched yesterday–you can look it up–the one we launched yesterday is the most viewed clip on YouTube in the last twenty-four hours. 1.1 million hits in the last twenty-four hours, that’s been advertised by mainstream. The whole point of .XXX is to bridge that gap to mainstream acceptance. Diane [Duke] [scoffed?] at me two or three years ago about taking mainstream sport sponsorships–no major sporting event. Well, I’m happy to announce that we sponsor the world’s powerboat championships. We have three-time World Champion Mike Seabolt racing “Miss .XXX”. It will be lined up in the water against “Miss Geico”; another major brand. IndyCar, in the United States, have agreed to take our sponsorship for a XXX logo site. We haven’t even started yet. We’ve got twenty million, in the first year, to promote the brand and drive traffic, and the people who’ve already got the names are enjoying that traffic already.“

Well! It would appear that Gail Dines is right! But will she add in her commentary that the American adult industry never wanted it? That the American adult industry and its L.A.-based trade organization, Free Speech Coalition (FSC), has been fighting .XXX for years? Even Manwin is against it, reportedly suing ICANN and ICM Registry for price gouging and unfair business practices–and Manwin is one of the most hated companies within the adult community for promoting piracy and facilitating content theft through it’s tube sites.

So if it’s not the adult industry “mainstreaming” porn in this way, who is it? Who is this person being quoted above?

Why, it’s fellow Brit, Stuart Lawley, who–according to this 2004 article–has:

.. no current or historic links to the adult industry in any form.

 

I think it’s safe to say that Stuart Lawley is now the most successful pornographer in the world; arguably standing to make more money than any other pornographer in history with this grand worldwide venture. And he doesn’t even have to own a camera.

I wonder if Gail Dines would note such a thing.

If there’s any doubt the industry has been against it, she can follow the history of FSC’s fight against .XXX by googling it, or visiting this post quoting the industry leaders and lawyers about what .XXX means to the adult industry. Minus Stormy Daniels and Nina Mercedez–who must be getting a sizable chunk of change for their endorsement–I don’t know one person, adult-related, who sees any value in the extortionist tactics displayed by ICM Registry and backed by ICANN.

At any rate, I am eager to find out what anti-porn activists think about seeing .XXX ads insinuating bestiality and celebrating racism when they turn on their t.v. sets to watch an episode of “Mythbusters”.

The reposting of this article is allowed only with express written permission from © Julie Meadows Entertainment.

Dr. Chauntelle has her PhD in sociology, but unlike many people I’ve met (degree or no), she is intuitive and thoughtful. When she highlights anything questionable in the media, I pay attention.

Someone had told me they saw a .XXX commercial on a popular cable channel, but did not followup with me about it. They probably forgot.

If you are not familiar, Stuart Lawley–the Chairman of both ICM Registry and IFFOR–is part of the recent “mainstreaming” of porn; plugging sex into our psyches during boat races, road trips with grandma, and now during breaks from watching educational entertainment on the Discover Channel. Yay!!!

Not that sex-inspired thoughts don’t trickle through our brains at any given moment due to some kind of external stimulation, but if my understanding is correct, this is the first time that porn is being advertised on regular family programming here in The States, and at outdoor family events, (and on the side of a tour bus as we travel down the road).

In the past, .XXX was aggressively pushed as a way to protect children from adult sites, with its clearly identifiable url. I’m confused by the intention that it truly is designed (at least in part) to protect children, knowing a high profile family channel like the Discover Channel has taken up advertising a domain destination clearly created for showcasing adults having sex.

You’ll have to read Dr. Chauntelle’s post because there are some pretty gnarly stereotypes going on in two of the videos she highlights. It’s pretty bizarre stuff, to say the least.

Also, Amanda of Amanda36c – A Camgirl’s Blog writes about reading ICM Registry’s Terms of Service and uncovering the unsettling language that indicates that if you sign up for any of ICM Registry’s domains, they reserve the right to reproduce any of your content in a compilation manner without having to compensate you. When Amanda tweeted @dotXXX to ask direct questions about her concerns, someone from @dotXXX registered to her site and responded. When she asked for verification that it was, in fact, someone at @dotXXX who had registered, a tweet from @dotXXX verified that, yes, they had registered to her site and responded.

Then someone else posing under a different name, but from the same IP address, registered to her site to talk about @dotXXX in a positive way, while also being selectively critical in places so as not to seem like a @dotXXX affiliate. Her writeup on the original post can be found here.

I’d also like to stress to anyone able to spare an hour or so, watch Stuart Lawley and Diane Duke debate .XXX at the September 2011 XBIZ EU Summit in London. There are some audio blips, an obnoxious, cackling pro .XXX female in the audience, and what sounds like a large door slamming in the background from time-to-time, but it’s otherwise clear and definitely enlightening.

I’m curious about some of the conversation.

At timecode 24:22 Lawley talks about giving Jerry Barnett the domain www.Anywhere.xxx, minus registration fees. He runs on at great length–great length–expounding on how many random names are available and how successful some have been already, after having bought up .XXX real estate. (All of this after Duke pointed out that Frank Schilling’s Name Administration was allowed to buy .XXX names in January, well before anyone in the adult world was allowed to reserve url’s during the .XXX Sunrise period from September 7, 2011 to October 30, 2011–not a very industry-friendly move, I’d say.)

Diane’s response is, “Stuart, I think you’re making a good point. So if that is where your money is going to be made, then why don’t you let the people who have the trademarked names just have their url’s for free?” And the crowd explodes with applause.

If anyone who can clarify some of the points being made and missed on either side would like to chime in and explain, I’d appreciate it. It’s hard to follow a few things, and Lawley runs on for so long at times I start to doze off. I think maybe when Lawley said he “gave” the url to Jerry Barnett, Duke misunderstood, because he also said “minus registration fees.” Maybe he meant he waived the application process for Jeff? The way he must have waived the application process and fees for Frank Schilling’s Name Registration? Because they’re friends? Why was he so confident to sell these urls before .XXX was approved by ICANN months later? Especially in light of how many times-spanning several years–ICANN had set him back by declining various steps in Lawley’s .XXX initiative?

As far as child protection goes, www.anywhere.xxx opens up straight to hardcore sex with no buffer page. How does money from .XXX go towards protecting children? If anyone knows the particulars, please share.

The reposting of this article is allowed only with express written permission from © Julie Meadows Entertainment.

Kristenye contacted me knowing nothing about my site or Michael Whiteacre‘s work. She was referred to me by an acquaintance and says she has not been following anything about Shelley Lubben for some time, though she admits that she did reach out recently with another request for help. She asked for help in the form of clothing because she doesn’t own much conservative attire. An assistant named Melanie responded saying that she would “look into it”, but no other response has followed.

With Kristenye’s permission and Michael Whiteacre’s help, Michael was able to verify her identity and conduct his own conversation confirming her accounts and adding to the accumulated detail. I am going to recount Kristenye’s story as best I can, covering as much detail as possible from mine and Michael’s interactions with her, and adding commentary only where it seems appropriate.

Kristenye (formerly known as “Diamond”), is a woman who, in late 2007, was dancing, doing webcam work, and had performed in a handful of amateur videos centered in Virginia. Though she had never been to Los Angeles to film adult product, and says that she was in no way identifiable as a sex worker, her few videos caught the attention of Shelley Lubben. Shelley found and contacted her through Kristenye’s MySpace page, explaining that she was a Christian ex-porn star starting an organization to help porn stars leave the adult industry. She says Shelley asked her if she would like to be part of The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet–a syndicated talk show dedicated to interviews–in a segment entitled “Teens That Live Double Lives”. Kristenye agreed. Being from the South, and trusting that Shelley was sincere about her Christianity, Kristenye says that she and Shelley Lubben bonded very quickly despite a warning from a woman at a different Christian-based organization designed to help women exit the industry. This woman warned Kristenye that Shelley was self-determined and vindictive; that she’d do whatever she had to do get her way, but Kristenye felt a loyalty to Shelley and ignored this woman’s warnings. Kristenye also says that the help she expected from Pink Cross Foundation, she thought would come in the form of gift cards for clothes, gas and food; practical things that would help her find work away from the sex industry–the main thing she was being encouraged to do. In no way did she expect brand new clothes or anything extravagant, just basic helpful things.

Kristenye agreed to be on the show, but after arriving in New York, she explained to Shelley that she did not want to expose too much detail about her life because her mother would be watching. Lubben’s response was that if she didn’t share everything, they had no use for her. Additionally, Shelley told her that if she participated in the show, Shelley would help her with gift cards and financial assistance. Not only that, but according to Kristenye, the show’s producers only wanted Kristenye; not Shelley Lubben. They didn’t want to have to pay for two plane tickets, but Shelley explained to the producers that Kristenye was “too nervous to go on alone.” She recalls Shelley mentioning the spot as “a free trip” and that they would receive “appearance fees” to be on the show. Kristenye says that she was not too nervous to appear on the show alone, and stated it as if Shelley Lubben had never actually asked her about her comfort level.

Kristenye and Shelley Lubben spent that previous evening before their show appearance in New York at Hotel Mela in Times Square on December 3, 2007.

Kristenye says that Shelley met with her in her room and was very personable and motherly. She says that Shelley wanted to go over Kristenye’s story with her and coached Kristenye to “go overboard” with the details: about her sex with men, how much money she made, how bad the conditions were for the work she was doing. Shelley also coached Kristenye to mention that Pink Cross Foundation was helping her through donations. They talked about Pink Cross Foundation goals and Shelley’s intention to make a documentary series. Shelley told her she wanted Kristenye to write her “testimony”, and says this was also the point at which they discussed Kristenye’s concerns about revealing too much about her personal life on the show. She says Shelley assured her that if her mother cut her off “it didn’t matter” because Shelley would take care of her.

Afterwards they went to a bar, where Shelley started drinking and cursing. Kristenye said she saw Shelley’s other side, at that point.

Kristenye was very candid and charming, with her Southern accent and affable demeanor. We talked for some time and she explained that Lubben plays her part very well. Not only can she read a female and insert herself warmly as a mother figure, she says that in private Shelley curses a lot, but that in public she can switch on and be clean and professional. She says that Shelley was drinking and cursing at the bar that night. This only matters because Shelley claims Christianity, and by Christian standards, vulgar talk and behavior is deplorable. It’s sinning, basically. You can’t claim to represent God and then just do whatever you feel like doing, because you’d be setting an example against basic Christian beliefs. Not only that but Shelley claims to have quit drinking over ten years ago, yet Kristenye and Michelle Avanti both attest to witnessing her drink alcohol within that “sober” period. In our conversation I told Kristenye that Shelley went to a karaoke bar and bidded one thousand dollars on a date with Ron Jeremy, wore a very tiny dress, had Ron Jeremy sign her boob, and then danced like a stripper and kept having to pull up her dress up because her boobs were always on the verge of falling out. All well-documented footage that paints a different picture than the one you see when Shelley is speaking in front of a church congregation. Christians who adhere to Christian ideals don’t behave in this way, and Shelley would have to know this or else she would address the many concerns that her behavior is very un-Christ-like and inappropriate for a mother/wife/Woman of Faith. (Watch a Christian’s plea to stop donating to Shelley’s foundation here.) The fact is, Shelley Lubben addresses nothing, and it make s her all the more suspect.

After Kristenye appeared on The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet; after writing her testimony (which Shelley sent back to Kristenye, telling her to rewrite it with more detail added to certain parts of her story); after interviewing for Citizens Magazine, Kristenye says that she didn’t receive anything from Shelley or Pink Cross Foundation. No donations, no gift cards, no Bibles, no clothing for her daughter; things that people had reached out and told Kristenye were coming to her through Pink Cross Foundation by their personal efforts. She added that despite that, she and Shelley were close until Shelley asked Kristenye if she would fly from her home in Virginia to attend the 2010 “AVN Porn Convention” and speak out to other porn stars about getting out of the adult industry. Kristenye declined because she was not in a position to leave her young daughter at home. After that, Kristenye says Shelley was angered at her for declining and that communication stopped altogether. Kristenye says Shelley cited stress and “medical problems” for her withdrawal from Kristenye’s life, until altogether leaving correspondence to her assistant–which didn’t set well with Kristenye because her bond was with Shelley, not Shelley’s assistant.

Kristenye relays things I’ve heard from other people affiliated with Pink Cross Foundation. That help was promised and not given. That people donated gifts cards and clothes–specifically for Kristenye and her daughter–but that Kristenye saw none of it. She says that in place of items that would benefit her actually rebuilding her life, she receives “once or twice a year” a box full of “dollar store” items.

I, myself, received a box of Pink Cross items in December 2009, and Kristenye was able to confirm to me that she recived the same kinds of gifts. A cheap pink bracelet, a sample of perfume, a black T-shirt with “Ex-Porn Star” in bold pink lettering, a Bible, glittery lip gloss, a journal… And I always feel compelled to reiterate that this box was sent to me after I publicly criticized her contradictory stories and means for recruiting and treating ex-performers. That she sends to women in need the exact same things she sends to her critics is a sick feeling I can’t even begin to cultivate verbally. It’s insulting, basically.

Kristenye’s story matches those of Maliah Milian, Savannah Jane (yet to come), Michelle Avanti, Brooke Ashley, and countless others (including, but not limited to, her own family), whose claims are that she doesn’t give aid, that she distorts information, and that she outright lies.

Kristenye’s account is probably more than can really be recounted in a few conversations, because it is a string of promises and reassurances with no substance. Like sending a letter to a judge on Kristenye’s behalf and lying, saying that Kristenye was off of drugs and that they had traveled together “on occasion” when they had only traveled together one time.

[Select picture to enlarge]

Shelley adding at the bottom of Kristenye’s story on the website, hyper-excited text updates like,

I GOT MY G.E.D.

and

ME & MY MOM ARE GETTING ALONG AND WE’RE GOING CAMPING IN JULY

Kristenye says she did not get her GED, and that her and her mother are no longer speaking because of the show Kristenye appeared on; which was her stated fear in the first place.

The updates are very bizarre (I will not link to the page here):

Kristenye goes on to say that though she didn’t ask Lubben to take her story down from Lubben’s sites, Kristenye’s mother did–and on several occasions–on the basis that Lubben hasn’t done “any good” for Kristenye; only harm. Kristenye says that every time a Pink Cross newsletter goes out, her “story” is redistributed to countless people.

Kristenye feels that her association with Shelley Lubben has set her back in her life; not advanced it. She had hope because Shelley was so encouraging and positive about her life being ‘meant for greater things’, that she followed Shelley’s instructions and now lives in a town where no one knows who she is (to escape being known after the notorioety of her “story” on Shelley’s site); she has no family or support system; she is estranged from her mother, and she has no financial aid. Kristenye feels the relationship with her mother could be restored if Shelley would just remove her story from Shelley’s site. Kristenye says that Shelley comforted her over her mother’s impending rejection of her over the show appearance by telling Kristenye that her own family hates her–though we know now that is not the case at all, (link here).

No one is perfect. I think any of us would have compassion for Shelley Lubben if she dropped the façade and came forward honestly in order to make amends with the women she has betrayed in the game of “making money” and “getting ahead.” Kristenye admits that she’s no angel, and it would be easy to reason that you might have actually encountered tough times if you are someone Pink Cross Foundation would contact and offer assistance to, but someone like that needs real help. Kristenye wishes that Shelley would take her testimony down and stop circulating her exaggerated life “story” in her newsletters because, while it has benefited Shelley and her foundation, it has only caused Kristenye pain. I, personaly, would like for Shelley Lubben to stop saying that Michael Whiteacre and I recruit women into porn. I nearly cried when I thought a friend and ex-Pink Cross spokesperson was going to start doing scenes again. I did cry when she told me she found a day job.

I’d like to close with a message to Kristenye’s mom, if she happens to eventually find this in place of the popular horror show that was a story fueled by Kristenye’s hopes and Shelley Lubben’s greed: It is clear to me that Kristenye loves you, and that you must love her, too. Forgive each other and reconcile. I met a kind young woman yesterday who is strong enough to admit she made a mistake. I, myself, am living proof of the danger of making a string of mistakes in life, but you both deserve a good relationship with each other. It’s never too late to forgive and love.

All my love and best to Kristenye, her daughter and her mother.

*Correction: It was not “one thousand dollars” Shelley Lubben bid for her date with famous adult porn performer, Ron Jeremy. It was over six hundred dollars.

The reposting of this article is allowed only with express written permission from © Julie Meadows Entertainment.

I have just been informed that the scenes in this video are all stolen from efukt clips. The content is from Duke Skywalker’s “Facial Abuse” and JM Productions “Porn Most Outrageous Outtakes.” This is not “secret footage the porn industry doesn’t want you to see.”

And later:

One clip is “Whoregasm” Date: 9.6.11, from JM’s “Porn’s Most Outrageous Outtakes Vol. 2″; another is “Dude Upstages Everyone at Gangbang” Date: 8.3.11; the “Facial Abuse” scene is from “Pornstar Meltdown” 8.21.09 – her name is “Ellie.”

Thank you, Michael.

Now that we have some information about what we’re seeing, it can be discussed in greater detail.

I looked up what I could on JM Productions’ “Porn’s Most Outrageous Outtakes Vol. 2″, and found a number of reviews.

Thomas Roche at www.thomasroche.com writes of “Porn’s Most Outrageous Outtakes Vol. 2″:

If you harbor the enduring fantasy, as so many people do, of making porn yourself, I suggest you get yourself a copy of Porn’s Most Outrageous Outtakes 2 and see just how much fun it’s going to be…. perhaps I should point out that neither men nor women behave well here, but any underlying misogyny in Outtakes comes across either as proof positive that men are pigs, or reassuring evidence that porn actresses are total nut jobs and you wouldn’t want to fuck them anyway. To reiterate… if you want to be a porn star or porn director do this instead: watch JM Productions Porn’s Most Outrageous Outtakes, laugh your ass off, feel extraordinarily queasy and righteously superior, and then get a job as an accountant.

Gram Ponante at Fleshbot is a bit more specific.

The advantages of the outtake format become apparent in the next scene, in which Powers, describing a shoot with Kiki D’aire, not only explains the process of “corking” (you’ll have to watch it) but also, in counterpoint to his production manager, Johnny Thrust, details the departure from porn of Jason McCain.

“He tried to be a gay star but became a heroin addict instead,” Thrust says. Brutal.

We witness D’aire’s breakdown on set.

I was a bit terrified to find out what “corking” was, but I found an urban dictionary description with a few different takes on it; the first one being:

Corking is when a man is engaging sexual intercourse with a woman, and realizes he has a gigantic load to give. It is at this point in time when the man grabs a giant cork, ejaculates into the woman’s vagina, and plugs her up with the cork. After she has been plugged, the man jumps on her stomach.

I really hope no one jumped on Kiki’s belly. I won’t elaborate on what other things I hope because it seems pointless, since she ended up in this movie highlighting embarrassments and humiliations, regardless of my sentiment.

Also, I must admit that it’s hard to justify paying for the pleasure of seeing people unhappy, for whatever reasons their unhappiness came about during filming. That and these porn sites make handing over money very complicated. They want you to pay so much per minute or monthly, etc… One movie is all I’m trying to see folks!

Gram Ponante goes on to say:

[Johnny] Thrust describes the next scene, a gokkun (swallow, as opposed to bukkake, which is a non-swallowing gang bang) as “the dregs of humanity coming out to squirt on girls”. Powers says that he gets his male talent for large-scale bukkake and gokkun shoots from ads in the L.A. Weekly. (You can also participate by calling [phone number]).

He also explains that a “whoregasm”–courtesy of Johnny Thrust–is “when a porn performer has an orgasm and cries because she is releasing all her guilt.” Oh yeah. Gotta love it when a tactless and unintuitive male explains a woman’s psychology. “Mommy issues” and “daddy issues”, anyone? [Come on, you knew that was coming!]

Gram wraps up his article by saying:

We learn more about the porn world in this compelling collection of outtakes than we did in however many seasons there were/are of “Real Sex” and “Family Business” combined. And it’s not pretty.

Interestingly enough, www.tlavideo.com advertises in its writeup:

We are back with even more of the most extreme X-Rated bloopers and crazy out takes that the porn stars don’t want you to see. But hey, their loss is your gain, so enjoy the carnage.

So Shelley says the porn industry doesn’t want you to see this debauchery, yet it’s in a movie anyone can buy, and the movie advertises that it’s actually the porn stars who don’t want you to see it, which I would much more likely believe since it looks appallingly unfeeling and degrading. At least I’m starting to feel like I’m finding the source of Lubben’s own “box copy” for Pink Cross Foundation.

Before I comment on the woman who freaks out at the end, upon re-watching this video of Lubben’s a few times, it appears that the woman (towards the middle of the video), who is crying and saying she doesn’t like being abused, is talking to the director and might have agreed to do the scene under the terms laid out, but then is not okay during filming. She states in the video:

“I’m just not used to people being mean to me. I know it’s acting, but subconsciously I don’t…”

And then it cuts and we don’t know what more she has to say.

Jim Lane comes up a lot–stage name “Jim Powers”. I really tried to figure out who the model is in that particular scene, and it looks to me like it might be “Tricia Ray” (also spelled “Trisha Rey” and “Tricia Rey”).

I don’t know what to say. Maybe there should be a support group just for people who’ve worked for Jim Lane. If you’re not used to having sex like that, I can completely understand finding that you are not okay with it. “Acting” is hardly acting if you’re actually being roughed up. Just rummaging through a few clips trying to track down some of the actor names, I’ve seen more than I want to. I’m of the opinion that Jim and crew are, like Max Hardcore, people with severe abuses in their past. Common sense tells me that when you hate people and you make a determined effort to hurt them, you don’t like yourself very much at all–if at all. The level of personal disgust these men must feel for themselves is upsetting. We can assume all day what a “whore’s” past is like based upon a scene she’s willing to do today, but what of the man obsessed with her and punishing her for his own past hurts, who’s just as willing to let people see him behaving this way on camera? It’s embarrassing to admit abuse. Is it a typical scenario that the abused man reacts with anger and the abused female through tears? I suppose we could find a flip to this scenario in women who make men cry by hurting them and then exploiting it through a “blooper” reel? Or men who make other men cry? Women-on-women? There is an entire gay side to the industry and special fetish niches that are entirely ignored by the anti-porn critics.

The scene entitled “Dude Upstages Everyone at Gangbang” (the very first clip shown in Lubben’s video), and watching it at its origin site, actually shows the model fairly happy about what she’s doing. She smiled at the end, even if she does look a bit “out of it” up until that point. It would be for her to say what her inner and outer experience was during the shoot. I know that a grimace is not always an indication that a person is experiencing displeasure, but conversely, a smile does not always mean a person is experiencing pleasure. We smile because we’re nervous, embarrassed, etc… (I’m not going to link to the site here because I found really disturbing clips that negate anything “content” about this particular scene.)

I read a few reviews of this movie (there are at least four volumes, that I could find), and a similar theme is the “non-glamourous” aspect to it. It feels a bit like reading Lubben’s advertising thoughts as she uncovered the worst of the worst, herself.

“FrzKey” at www.HotMoviesForHer.com writes:

What the film does really well is desexifying the sex scenes so that you really get a sense of the less than glamorous feel of actually being on the set….

This concept is still dumbfounding to me, as I never saw porn as “glamourous.” Amazing to know there are people who actually marry these concepts, but I digress.

In the end, a woman is crying and freaks out and pushes one of the guys away. How can someone make that a highlight in a movie? How is this something anyone would find entertaining? And is there an industry organization that calls out producers for this sort of behavior? I know Free Speech Coalition has its hands full right now, but they didn’t always. I would really like to hear from women who endured beyond what they agreed to and tried to reach out for support and where they went and what reaction they received.

Before comments lean towards Shelley Lubben and her agenda, my hope is that we can safely bypass particulars and assume everyone is aware of her hypocrisies? Can we assume everyone here has seen Michael’s YouTube footage? Can we assume everyone is aware that she doesn’t answer important questions posed to her and that she clearly lies on her tax return and misappropriates money? Watching the video is hard just because of the music and her over-the-top behavior, but I’m thinking that is a given with the people who actually read this blog. The facts stand alone, yet she has to pretend to smoke a joint and then say something incoherent and nearly break our eardrums doing it. “Ear”, “here”? I don’t know what she’s saying, but it’s clear that “the harmful porn industry”–according to this video–are the people at JM Productions and the people at eFukt.

Who enjoys seeing people break down? I interviewed Tanner Mayes about her breakdown on Jim Lane’s set. I see now it was added to “Porn’s Most Outrageous Outtakes Vol. 4″. We know an adult can decline drinking alcohol on set, but why aren’t we questioning people who provide it for consumption on their sets, especially when it appears to be a ploy to fuel their emotions towards an outburst? That’s a liability and it’s no wonder these people are the reason porn is being attacked for not being regulated. Hell, Jim Lane films the front of someone’s house just because their not home. If they had been home? The PA was to offer the inhabitant twenty dollars to shoot the quick non-sex scene and say it was for a student film. (Read Kylie Ireland’s story at the link below.)

I’m thrilled to find Kylie Ireland’s Jim Lane story on her blog! It’s smart and detailed and kind of apologetic, but in a mature and responsiblity-conscious way. No one wants to come off as a weak person in this business, but she shouldn’t have to apologize for enduring a bad experience and then feeling obligated to write about it. We should be able to come forward with our experiences without feeling shame from either side of the industry for exposing real human pain. Either way, I do see women shamed for being, at times, “overly feeling” about or during their work, while men’s “overly feeling” tendency towards anger is explained and often embraced. As Khan Tusion sneers at the director of Hardcore, “It’s romance.” I’m convinced that the Keeani Lei person in Kylie’s story did everything she did at Jim Lane’s urging based upon what Kylie didn’t want to happen during the scene. It makes sense. He gets to play moderator while a planted person does intentionally aggressive things.

You can read Kylie’s experience on “The Violation of Kylie Ireland”–aptly entitled “The Violation of Me”–at this link.

(I was going to write “Fortunately, Kylie was lucky enough to escape being the star of his behind the scenes footage,” but then I thought I’d better look it up before ending that way. She is, in fact, in “Porn’s Most Outrageous Outtakes Vol. 3″. Review here. Ah, living the American Dream. When you can underpay actors for their work, cause them to cry, and get two products out of it. I’m really f*cking speechless right now. I recommend you read Kylie’s story. This woman was no newbie and she’s highly respected within the adult community.)

The reposting of this article is allowed only with express written permission from © Julie Meadows Entertainment.

Obvious over-the-top production aspects notwithstanding, I’d like to know who the women are in the shoots and also the producers. None of the text explains where the footage comes from, but I’m horrified that there are people who deliberately produce product like this for people to buy. Who are these women and which companies produced these clips?

Tags below the video:

Shelley Lubben, Pink Cross, ex porn stars, porn stars, dead porn stars, abuse workplace, horrific, sex trafficking, slavery, rape, shocking, porn industry, adult film industry, xxx, herpes, AIDS, hiv, porn directors, male porn star Abuse, devil, Jesus, Abolition, anti-porn, hardcore sex

I think we deserve to know who these people are? This is very disturbing. If you want to shock us with the truth, tell us what we’re looking at. This is the kind of product that makes me disgusted by producers in the industry.

I know some people think Shelley Lubben has a good heart. I know too much to think that’s true, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be talking about this kind of porn.

And I still haven’t heard anything from Jenni Case detailing things she claims about the industry and her experiences on and off camera.

The reposting of this article is allowed only with express written permission from © Julie Meadows Entertainment.

Pornographers, if you already have felonies and you commit violent crimes against women, you will die in prison

What does that even mean, really? They are the queens of twisted and ominous twitter posts, I swear. No one cares if Lubben actually gets help for her problems. Lubben et al don’t care if pornographers harm women, or they’d care that they harm themselves, as well. It’s all just a lot of chest puffing and ego on both sides. The pro-porn/anti-porn back and forth is bullshit. I wish I’d never created this blog or had anything to do with this industry after my performing career.

And then there’s Brandon Iron.

We went back and forth in this thread, and his latest response to me is that “Now that you’ve done your research, I’m hoping you’ll post this as it gives my side of the story. This assumes, of course, that you are interested in the other side.”

No, Brandon, I have not done my research on your movies, yet. Just because your face shows up for two seconds in the Hardcore documentary doesn’t mean I’ve watched any of your current work. I’m assuming one of the last few posts is what you’re referring to? I’m going to have to take your word for it that you don’t shoot the kind of female humiliation porn you shot for Extreme Associates over ten years ago. I have to take your word for it that you don’t employ the thought processes and work recruitment tactics you described in this video over ten years ago. You still haven’t expressed what motivated you to do that or why you changed, but I have not had time yet to review your current work, so I retract my statement that you are a predatory pornographer.

I have been interested in “the other side.” I started this blog to highlight the positives about my career and about the industry from my perspective, but now that I have exhausted the positives, I’m left looking at the other side. The side where people think a female crying during or after sex is a “breakthrough” rather than an emotional and mental breakdown. I think the Los Angeles-based adult industry is imploding on itself for good reason. Industries in other countries may be great, responsible places to work, but here it is a mess. I can’t champion an industry fraught with agents who send models on escort calls without telling them that’s what they’re doing. I don’t even watch porn for fun, so what am I really doing here? Apologizing for my career? Explaining it so that I might help educate people? All it’s become is a vehicle for a one-sided story. And then I thought I had a female friend, someone like me, that I could bond with because finding a woman to bond with who understands this industry is really hard. Instead I get accusations and insults just because I’m cordial with people she doesn’t like. I’m so disgusted I’m seriously considering obliterating this blog altogether. It’s become a joke, and everything I see is ridiculous.

I’m glad Michael Whiteacre got his YouTube channel back. Shelley Lubben sent so many DMCA letters that YouTube removed it for a time. Jordan Owen’s parody on Lubben wielding a staff towards the four corners of the earth was also removed due to Lubben’s DMCA letters, yet their work is protected under Fair Use. In fact, it looks like Anthony Kennerson also got his mirrored video back online. How can you send out DMCA notices knowing you use the copyrighted photos of deceased people; knowing that after getting a kind and pleading email from a deceased person’s family member that you do not possess the respect to take her photo from your exploitative and lying video?

And that’s another thing. How can this ex-friend of mine call CPS on her enemies and go on and on about exploiting children when she’s seen Lubben’s flier posing her own prepubescent child in makeup, underclothes and holding a teddy bear and looking near tears as a way to talk about child pornography? Did this circulate during an event about child pornography? No. It was used for shock value and to conflate the legal adult industry with illegal pornographic activity. In fact, the event was orchestrated to talk about condoms. Condoms. What kind of person circulates photos of her child in almost no clothing for pedophiles to find and leer at? How can you care about me and not have a conscience about your own daughter? If someone has the flier, can you please send it? I’m tried of mentioning it and not being able to post it. I will blur out the little girl’s face, of course.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to find a reason to care. There is no war to be won. In the ideal anti-porn world no one gets to celebrate their adult fortunes and mistakes. In the ideal pro-porn world, things go on as-is and people like me are booked for sex work we don’t ascribe to just because we’re willing to work, period.

I knew a woman who, like me at that time, was an escort. She sent her friends to some of her clients. A mutual friend, also an escort, told me one day, “If she tries to send you to xxxx, don’t take it. She sent me to that guy, and he was dead in the eyes. He berated me and called me names the entire time. I got through it but I broke down after. When I asked her why she didn’t tell me the guy was going to be abusive, she said, ‘It’s just like any scene you’d do, right?’ I gasped! I don’t do scenes like that!!” Sure enough, she tried to send me to that guy. “Is he the Indian who’s big on name-calling?” “Yes.” “Then no. I don’t do work that intentionally degrades me.” She just blinked at me. She couldn’t get her head around that.

Is anger during sex so normal nowadays that men and women don’t know there are people like me and “Tracy” who don’t enjoy being called names and slapped and spit on? Is that the criteria now for being in the sex industry? That if you’re willing to have sex you are automatically deserving of a situation you may have never been in in your life? I have no daddy fetish. I have never been “choked out”. And the best part of being “vanilla” is getting put down for it by defensive people who are just as incapable as I am of adapting to the situation, only the other way, because they can’t have straight sex that involves smiles and laughter. They can’t not play a role. I have never put that kind of sex down for other people, yet now that I’m asking questions I’m getting treated like there’s something wrong with me because I’m incapable of understanding anything other than “boring sex.” I want to understand. That’s why I ask questions.

I once asked my best friend, Chloe, why she enjoyed bondage and pain. She explained it to me. It’s really that simple, but people who need to justify hurting others during sex don’t ask me why I like “vanilla” sex. They spit their perspective at me. I’m capable of understanding, but I don’t think they’re capable of explaining it, because I think it goes much deeper than “it’s expression”. The people I know who enjoy certain types of sex experienced that kind of sex in their personal lives. I never experienced sex in my life that wasn’t really basic until I got into porn. I chose work that I felt would leave me and my scene partner(s) feeling like we bonded beyond our bodies. I chose work that I enjoyed in private; that would feed my soul as much as possible based upon the nature of the job.

I would never suggest someone choose sex work unless you have such a passion for it you feel you aren’t living unless you do it; unless you feel it’s your destiny. Don’t be lured, don’t be convinced to try it just because some male or female says they like you and that it will make you rich. It’s an unsustainable life choice, especially with the economy where it is and piracy on the rise. Don’t expect for one second you’ll become a Jenna Jameson. Those days are over. Work on your intellect, because if you do choose pornography, you may never get past it later in life. The industry itself isn’t the worst part, it’s finding out after you’re done that the hypocrites who still watch your movies in private are more than willing to spit on you in public.

The reposting of this article is allowed only with express written permission from © Julie Meadows Entertainment.

Anyway, she references a scene in a British documentary entitled Hardcore by Stephen Walker, in which a woman named Felicity (from England), flies into Los Angeles to work in hardcore sex scenes. Here are the links to both Max Hardcore clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgfsixfY3dk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObZZZPsTZjU

What’s bizarre about this setup, is that Felicity expresses her fear and discomfort about working for/with Max Hardcore on the drive to his house with her agent, Richard. She says she will meet Max but that it doesn’t mean she will do the scene.

Richard is an agent and he doesn’t care that she doesn’t want to do the scene, he wants to make money. What I don’t understand, is that if she’s expressed her reservations about being abused in a scene, why doesn’t he just take her somewhere else? Why insist on taking her there and risk her hating the experience and running from the industry altogether? Layla Jade interviews and talks about working for Max, and acts like she was perfectly fine with the scene requirements. Layla does say she was “put off” when he took a bit of skin off her tongue by jamming his hand into her mouth, but otherwise seems like she was fine with the terms of her scene.

It gets worse when the camera is on Richard and he’s completely unsympathetic to her limitations. Our narrator says in Felicity’s defense, “Maybe she’s a bit frightened.” Richard responds:

Maybe she is and maybe she’s not, but don’t blame it on everybody else. I’m getting fed up with getting the blame for something else. I’ve never said it was going to be anything other than people shooting her, that’s the whole point. If you want to make money you’ve got to work, and this is not doing anything she hasn’t done before. Not anything. [laughs]

Stephen responds with, “What? Putting snot in people’s faces? Spitting in their mouths?” Richard:

Nobody is saying he’s going to do any of that. None.

But that’s just it. Everybody is talking around the scene requirements and Max isn’t even there, yet. She’s preparing for a scene she’s already certain she doesn’t want to do.

The camera goes back to Felicity who is being primed through conversation with Max’s cameraman, Marcos. Felicity is saying that she’s heard things about Max and isn’t there to be abused. And mind you, she’s done sex work before, she just doesn’t want to portray the kind of sex Max records. You can see the disgust on her face as she looks the “little girl” clothes over.

Felicity: I just want to speak to him.

Marcos: Sure, yeah.

F: I want to see everything that he expects of me today. I’ve heard stuff and, I thought this was a meeting.

M: You hear he is a killer, he’s a bad guy?

F: No, not a bad guy, he’s just very extreme in the way he works.

M: I know. I know how you feel, I know what you mean. But uh… we try to discover the girls. How far we can go. How far he can take it. Cuz sometimes he can take it even further but you don’t even know that. Right?

F: That is misleading the girls.

M: Right.

F: Yeah. That’s wrong. That’s wrong. That’s like abuse saying… that’s wrong in my ideal.

M: I know, I know.

F: To me that’s abuse, that’s wrong and I haven’t come here to be abused, I’ve come here to work. I’ve come here to do the best that I can…

The camera then cuts back to Richard and Stephen.

Stephen: What happens if she walks out?

Richard: She doesn’t work tonight. We’ve all wasted our time coming over here. I’ve wasted my time which is one of the things I really don’t like doing.

S: You’re angry?

R: If she walks out I will be. For no reason. If she’s got a justifiable reason then I’ll go along with it. I support her all the way but when you come over here to work and I’m taking you to work–in normal circumstances, as far as I’m concerned–then I expect you to work. I don’t expect you to come up with unacceptable excuses.

I’m struck by a few things here. First of all, how Marcos gives the appearance of sympathy. “I know, I know.” “I know how you feel.” “I know what you mean.” It is very hard to watch because there are so many mixed signals going on. 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.

She doesn’t get a formal conversation about any aspect of the scene. Instead, Max is in performer mode the moment he meets her and just starts bending her over and having sex and such. She repeats her fears and they’re disregarded. When she gets upset, Max acts like it’s some kind of surprise and her agent does nothing.

She should have listened to Stephen and walked out without doing the scene, but in the end she feels she has to do the scene or she won’t get any work. Max calls her a “fucking loser” after she runs crying from the scene and tries to explain that she is thoroughly intimidated by the whole experience and can’t finish. After Max chastises her, Stephen finishes with this:

At this point, Felicity is persuaded to go on with the shoot, but I felt she was no longer able to decide for herself. Whatever consent existed earlier, no longer existed. Before things went any further, we stepped in. Within five minutes, she was out of the house.

I already know I’m going to get an earful about Gail Dines, and believe me, I have my criticisms, but I am already familiar with the pro-porn arguments. I’ve heard them at length and made quite a few, myself. The point is to understand the concerns; to understand what the anti-porn perspective is all about. Does it really come down to this extreme niche? And why is this niche so popular? Are these men acting out their anger on women who refused them in the past? If this female has “daddy issues” and needs to retaliate against an absent or abusive father, do these abusive men have “mommy issues” and need to retaliate against an absent or abusive mother?

I watched all of Hardcore, and some of it is contrived, but things are brought up that raise a lot of questions for me. I suppose I have a lot more reading to do.

To watch the entire documentary, follow this link.

The reposting of this article is allowed only with express written permission from © Julie Meadows Entertainment.