But these criteria are not without critics. Important questions remain about topics such as the definitions of community standards and prurient interest, and who gets to de­cide. Some argue that the criteria of prurience, offensiveness, and community standards turn moral fears into legal “harms,” which are more imaginary than real, and so we end up with arbitrary discussions of what is “prurient” and which speech has “value” (I. Hunter et al., 1993). On the other hand, antiporn feminists argue that pornography laws were made to reflect a male preoccupation with “purity” of thought and insult to moral sensibilities and to ignore the true harms of pornography: the exploitation of women (which we’ll ex­plore shortly; R. J. Berger et al., 1991).

Подпись:Presidential Commissions

Although presidential commissions date back to George Washington, they became more popular in the 20th century (Rosenbaum, 2005). As of 2005, a total of 46 presidential commissions had been established, examining issues such as bioethics, chemical warfare, and terrorist attacks. These commissions issued detailed reports and recommended

. I Want to Be a Porn Star!

. I Want to Be a Porn Star!

show of fingers in the air the girls were asked to "score" the guys on a scale of 1 to 10. There was a cash prize for the guy with the highest score.

The second scene was much like the first only it in­volved the guys seated on the couches and the girls on their knees. I was blindfolded and each of the seven girls came around and gave me oral sex for three min­utes each. When each of the girls had given action to each of us, we removed our blindfolds to watch the grand finale—our ejaculations. During all the scenes the cameramen moved around freely filming video and taking still photos.

My third scene was filmed on the final day of shooting. I was to be dominated by two women. We participated in a kinky threesome the likes of which I have never known. The women performed oral sex on each other and on me. We switched positions repeat­edly, and there was much groping and licking. The scene lasted for about an hour, but the time seemed to go by very quickly. At one point I was lying down and one girl was sitting on my face while the other was sucking on my cock.

The experience was very interesting. Although I was glad to have the experience I did not find that it was an appealing career for me to pursue, and I have been troubled by the potential aftermath of my partic­ipation. I realize that I might lose my relationship with Chris because of my participation in this event. I have often wondered if jealousy would drive her to cheat on me. I also wonder if she’ll think more about it and de­cide to let me go because she is so unhappy that I would partake in such an undertaking.

Chris: When I think of Alan’s experience my thoughts go back and forth. There are some days that I am glad that he went; after all, this was a once in a lifetime op­portunity for him. But then there are days when just thinking about my boyfriend having any sexual contact with other women makes me sick to my stomach.

What was I thinking to let him go? I still don’t know, but I do know that I love him, and he still loves me. I think that after all of this our relationship has become much stronger, and I feel like he appreciates me more than before. That’s not saying that he didn’t before, but now I feel as if he goes as far out of his way as he can to show me that he appreciates me. If he were to have the opportunity to go again he would have to make a choice between going and me, because I want him to only want me. I never had to tell him that, he already knows. But I don’t think that he really wants to go again.

He tells me that he is glad that he had the opportunity to go, but it’s not his thing (and I cannot tell you how happy I was to hear that!). I hope that over time this whole experience will be nothing more than that, just another experience in my relationship with him. Someday soon, it will be a thing in our past, because we are moving on together toward a bright future.

Author’s Note: Chris and Alan’s relationship ended about a year after Alan’s adult film experience. The porn video was troubling to Chris and difficult for her to come to terms with. Alan felt guilty but was still happy for the opportunity to be involved in the video. In the end, they decided to go their separate ways.

Source: Author’s files.

Подпись: sexbytПодпись:changes in public policy. Even though presidential commissions often do not lead to an adoption of new policies, they do help educate Americans about important issues. Now we’ll explore two of the commissions on pornography.

1970 Commission on Obscenity and Pornography In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson set up a commission to study the impact of pornography on American soci­ety. The commission was headed by a behavioral scientist who brought on other so­cial scientists, and although the commission also included experts in law, religion, broadcasting, and publishing, its findings were based on empirical research, and much of its $2 million budget was used to fund more scientific studies (Einsiedel, 1989). The commission (which used the terms erotica or explicit sexual material rather than pornography), studied four areas: pornography’s effects, traffic and distribution of pornography, legal issues, and positive approaches to cope with pornography (R. J. Berger et al., 1991).

The 1970 Commission operated without the benefit of the enormous research on pornography that has appeared in the last 30 years, and so it has been criticized for such things as not distinguishing between different kinds of erotica (for example, violent ver­sus nonviolent); for including homosexuals, exhibitionists, and rapists all under the same category of “sex offenders”; and for relying on poor empirical studies. Still, al­though calling for more research and better designed and funded studies in the future, the Commission did perform the most comprehensive study of the evidence up until that time and concluded that no reliable evidence was found to support the idea that expo­sure to explicit sexual materials is related to the development of delinquent or criminal sexual behavior among youths or adults, so adults should be able to decide for themselves what they will or will not read (Einsiedel, 1989).

In other words, the Commission recommended that the state stop worrying so much about pornography, which it saw as a relatively insignificant threat to society. The U. S. Senate was not happy with the Commission’s conclusions and condemned them.

The 1986 Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (the “Meese Commission”) In 1985, President Ronald Reagan appointed Attorney General Edwin Meese to head a new commission that he expected to overturn the 1970 Commission’s findings. In fact, the official charter of the Meese Commission was to find “more effec­tive ways in which the spread of pornography could be contained” (R. J. Berger et al., 1991, p. 25) and so already assumed that pornography is dangerous or undesirable and needs containment. Whereas the 1970 Commission focused on social science, the Meese Commission listened to experts and laypeople through public hearings around the country, most of whom supported restricting or eliminating sexually graphic materi­als. Virtually every claim made by antipornography activists was cited in the report as fact with little or no supporting evidence, and those who did not support the Commission’s positions were treated rudely or with hostility (R. J. Berger et al., 1991).

The Meese Commission divided pornography into four categories: violent pornog­raphy, “degrading” pornography (e. g., anal sex, group sex, homosexual depictions), non – violent/nondegrading pornography, and nudity. The Commission used a selection of sci­entific studies to claim that the first two categories are damaging and may be considered a type of social violence, and that they hurt women most of all. Overall, the Meese Commission came to the opposite conclusions of the 1970 Commission and made a number of recommendations: [3]

Reaction to the Meese Commission was immediate and strong. Many of the leading sexuality researchers cited by the Commission in support of its conclusions condemned the report and accused the Commission of intentional misinterpretation of their sci­entific evidence. The Moral Majority, the religious right, and conservative supporters hailed the findings as long overdue. Women’s groups were split on how to react to the report. On the one hand, the report used feminist language and adopted the position that pornography damages women. Antiporn feminists saw in Meese a possible ally to get pornography banned or at least restricted and so supported the Meese Commission’s conclusions, if not its spirit. Other women’s groups, however, were very wary of the Commission’s antigay postures and conservative bent, and they worried that the report would be used to justify wholesale censorship.

Question: I’ve watched pornography, and I’m just curious about condom use. Are there any rules about using condoms on the sets of pornographic movies?

Male and female adult film actors are not legally required to wear condoms during filming. Some production companies may require condoms, but producers argue that what sells best is "real" sex with­out without condoms (Madigan, 2004). Actors are required to undergo monthly testing for sexually transmitted infections, but as you learned from Chapter 15, many infections may not show up in testing until many weeks after a person becomes infected. Some states have begun exploring legislation to require condom use during filming. In fact, in 2004 the California Assembly warned the pornographic-film industry that condoms must be worn or they will write a law to require it (Madigan, 2004).