Porntifications

Posted by mikezillion at March 25th, 2007

It makes me smile when I read about how print is dead. All the experts point to the trends to prove their conclusion. Sales are down, revenues are down, newsstands are emptier, and all the focus is on new and dynamic communications technologies. Even many of our favorite porn magazines have closed up shop. That’s all about the business model, not about the medium.

Print is not dead, just as sure as the computer did not deliver on the threat of a paperless office. Perhaps some of the ways print has been used will need to adapt to the marketplace. For my audience of international urban bears and bear lovers, there is no better alternative than a convenient, resilient print magazine. That doesn’t mean that the websites will die. I’m still here blogging, aren’t I? It just means that the new and old options will adapt to complement each other.

Posted by mikezillion at March 23rd, 2007

I’m not sure how I feel about this one. I didn’t like the wording of the Child Online Protection Act one little bit, but I did support the objectives. Now an 84-page ruling from U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed in Philadelphia has decreed the proposed law unconstitutional for two key reasons: the wording was sufficiently over-broad to have a chilling effect on free speech, and the approach was not the least restrictive and most effective method available.

I have to agree. Any law banning all speech which is considered “harmful to minors” in a given medium leaves much too much room for interpretation. On the other hand, kids just aren’t mature enough to be exposed to some of the adult themes in legitimate pornography. That is a concern we all need to take into consideration when we make any information public. The judge in this case recommends use of modern filtering technology as a more appropriate technique. While flawed at best, filtering technology does allow publishers to use their good will and best judgment to tag information. What the filtering companies do with the tags is another issue….

Posted by mikezillion at March 22nd, 2007

According to some scientists, the origins of human morality may be biological. This is based on observations of selfless and empathetic behavior among social apes, with no apparent objective other than preservation of the social grouping. There is no mention of obscenity as a recognized immoral and antisocial impulse, but it is made clear that religion has no apparent roots in biology. Is that perhaps only due to the human capacity to carry information beyond the lifespan of the oldest member of a society?

Posted by mikezillion at March 17th, 2007

Thanks again to Guy Kawasaki for pointing out this interesting article on effort. The point that really sparked my thinking: people who believe that they are either good or bad at a task see no value in trying to be otherwise. If they are good, there is no need to improve. If they are bad, there is no point in trying. In either case–and this is where it gets interesting–investing an effort would risk invalidating that basic belief. So effort is avoided in favor of maintaining a consistent self-perception or public image. However, people who see their goodness or badness as a trainable quality are more likely to put in the effort necessary to obtain or improve abilities.

This reminds me of the General Semantics principle of E-Prime as an alternative to standard English for writing. If we eliminate the passive voice by avoiding forms of the verb “to be” in analytical writing, we may avoid a mindset in which we assume that things “are” other things. If we “are” bad, or good, that’s the end of the discussion. If we do well, or poorly, we have the opportunity to explore the root causes of our perceived ability or lack thereof.

Posted by mikezillion at March 16th, 2007

I’ve been watching with horror as the news of officially-ordered presidential loyalty lists for federal prosecutors, and the subsequent firing of seven competent attorneys at the pleasure of the president, leaked out to the media. I knew it was bad, but I had no idea it was this bad. Now it seems that my overactive senses of doom and paranoia are getting another boost from evidence that there was an anti-porn agenda in this mess as well. 2008 can’t come soon enough for me!

At least there was a little amusing news about obscenity prosecutions and other political hypocrisy to lighten my mood today.

Posted by mikezillion at March 14th, 2007

According to Variety, Hollywood is on the way to a revival of the 3-D movie. All I can say is how soon do we start seeing new 3-D porn titles? I’ve been a fan of 3-D since I was in my early teens, and I taught my eyes how to cross and focus at the same time. (It’s easier than it sounds.) I just hope that my favorite porn producers are getting the message.

Posted by mikezillion at March 13th, 2007

I’ve always been a big supporter of labeling. I don’t want kids exposed to adult material, and I have to trust their parents to keep them away by providing the necessary tools. Labels are a great tool. But one of the iconic divas of adult entertainment, Susie Bright, now has me rethinking my approach. Her recent blog about the NSFW label on the web, and how inconsistent it is with media standards in print and television, revives my initial indignation about v-chip technologies and other label-based limitations on information distribution. In particular, the ease with which feminist writings are labeled NSFW irks me. Thanks for the reminder, Susie!

Posted by mikezillion at March 5th, 2007

It’s nice to see the Internet Adult Film Database expanding its scope to include gay titles. As of today, some 18,000 gay adult movies have been added. It’s cool, because now I can find at least one of my own titles there. (I am such an attention pig!)

Posted by mikezillion at March 3rd, 2007

This clip from Bill O’Reilly, the unlinkworthy right-wing television shock jock, speaks for itself. My buddy Jack over at the Gay Porn Blog has raised the question of whether Bill or his staff members might have “borrowed” some of the media used in this report from Jack’s fine publication. (Well, it’s fair use, if not fair and balanced.) Personally, I’m just disappointed to hear Ms. Alioto and Mr. Newsom for disavowing knowledge and support for public recognition of one of the city’s undisputed institutions, Colt Studios.