COMMENTS: 90
Porn 2.0: What Happens When Free Porn Meets Social Networking
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Sex & Relationships headlines via email.
She's not the only one to have a former lover post her most intimate moments for the world to google. There are over 250 ex-girlfriends currently featured among the tens of thousands of sex videos on YouPorn.
About 15 per cent of women have knowingly made sex videos, according to a recent poll in Cosmopolitan magazine. If true, that's how many are at risk of having an ex post x-rated files of them on a porn-sharing site.
Unlike Paris Hilton, the average YouPorn star probably won't become famous, except unwittingly to his or her next potential boss or partner. And it's likely he or she will suffer a loss of privacy that could hurt her reputation, relationship and career.
As sites like YouPorn and PornoTube that mesh community aspects of social networking with completely free-of-charge pornography rise in popularity, so too do the associated copyright and privacy infringements.
Right now, the law is lagging behind in redressing the harm done to victims of "porn 2.0."
And with the rapid expansion of this new technology, concerns over the impending social, economic and legal implications are probably the only thing uniting conservative lawmakers and traditional pornographers.
The problem with free
Every day, there are 266 new porn sites on the Net. Every second, 28,258 users are viewing porn.
New aggregators like YouPorn and PornoTube make it easier for a new audience to find free Internet porn, previously often only accessible to "techies" who knew how to use often illegal file sharing methods like Bit Torrent.
"I never get free porn. I'm not good with all that Internet stuff, the passwords, the searching. I just buy it," said one 43 year-old Vancouver man an interview for this article. But he said he would go to YouPorn instead if it was just all in one spot and free, and says that due to this technology, he will almost certainly view more porn than before.
X-rated' Facebook
He's not attracted to the social networking side of YouPorn, but many people are. One of the best things about these YouTube-like services, says an avid fan, is they allow you to both chat with other posters online and read their profiles. "It's like Facebook with an x-rated edge."
Porn 2.0 sites mesh tagged content, discussion groups and user comments and ratings to form a community where users can easily explore and share different fetishes and fantasies.
Without that community aspect, the allure of YouPorn diminishes, says Fredrick Lane, author of Obscene Profits, a study of the success of online pornography. "It's easier for voyeurs to indulge in fantasy and exhibitionists to expose themselves without violating the law. It's like an electronic peeping Tom."
There are even several Facebook groups for fans of online porn. Members of the PornoTube Appreciation Society, for example, post messages like "Work is going down the tube! The PornoTube!"
Porn goes democratic
Free porn on the web is nothing new. But aggregating it into one searchable database a la YouTube is. That free porn revolution highlights the democratization of sexuality, says Lane.
When porn first emerged in mainstream society, he says, a few magazines like Hustler and Playboy determined social norms of sexual attractiveness: "5'10" and blonde." Now, fans have access to a wide variety of sexual preferences and experiences.
But not everyone in the porn world is turned on by recent developments. In fact, the ease of posting porn online is causing a panic among some adult film producers, who spend big budgets on big stars, only to have those posted and viewed for free, or only to see viewers turn to free, amateur porn instead.
Initially, the Internet increased pornography sales, by providing users with easy and anonymous access. U.S. revenue reached a record $2.84 billion in 2006.
But after years of fairly steady increases, sales and rentals of porn videos dipped from $4.28 billion in 2005 to $3.62 billion last year, according to estimates by AVN, an industry trade publication.
Paid advantages
Despite the slide, traditional porn companies say they still have some advantages. Although the rawness of amateur porn is part of its appeal for some, professional adult filmmakers are banking on the appeal of higher quality production and well-known stars. Some offer extra services.
"Fans of sites like my own appreciate having access to material that is focused on a particular person, and they want to see and learn all they can about that person," says Seska Lane, who hosts and stars in three Canadian pay-for-porn sites. "Live webcam interaction cannot be found on free porn websites."
Along with others, she's upset that material from paid porn sites is increasingly showing up illegally on free porn 2.0 sites -- users sometimes even pay to download the video then post it for free somewhere else. Lane says adult companies like hers are moving to protect their work from copyright infringement by contacting offenders.
Both YouPorn and PornoTube already offer ways to complain about copyrighted material on their sites. But a search for the infamous Jenna Jameson turned up 29 results on YouPorn, despite her efforts, and the efforts of the site, to protect copyright.
When private is public
The amateur porn phenomenon also brings a legal quandary involving privacy for non-professionals.
For those 250 YouPorn "ex-girlfriends" who made private sex videos for strictly personal use, only to find them released online, their rights to privacy will likely go unprotected.
People post sexually explicit images without consent all the time, says Janine Benedet a professor in the UBC faculty of law. "It is a devastating attack. There is no legal mechanism for victims to get their pictures back once they're out there, despite the fact that there is lingering harm."
Any Canadian who posts online content is subject to obscenity laws laid out in the Criminal Code of Canada. Even if the server that hosts the content is outside Canada, if there is a connection to Canada, the offender can be charged.
But Benedet, who specializes in pornography law, says there are very few cases where Internet posts have been deemed illegal by the courts. In one Ontario case, a man was charged with distributing child porn. In another Ontario case, a man was charged with extortion for threatening that he would post nude pictures of a woman on the Internet if she didn't continue to sleep with him.
The charge of video voyeurism might be applied if an image is posted without consent, but this is rare.
"I would be amazed if all the videos on these sites had full consent of the people involved," Benedet says. But if a person is legally in possession of sexually explicit adult content, criminal harassment might be the only applicable charge.
Porn aggregators' liability is not entirely clear under existing legislation. "So far I don't think we've seen any prosecution of that kind," Benedet says.
Real world problems
Privacy disclaimers on YouPorn and PornoTube are extensive. Waivers state users must have the consent of all individuals involved, and claim liability protection against a third party lawsuit.
The companies seem to scrutinize their content at least for illicit content. Searches for "illegal" and "child" turned up no search results on either site.
But the worldwide nature of the web makes it difficult to trace and prosecute violators and even more difficult to police privacy rights. There is no universal set of laws that apply to the distribution, purchase, or possession of Internet porn.
Still, that's not to say what happens on the net can't be regulated, says Benedet. "The idea that the Internet is a borderless lawless universe is quite false," she adds.
Experts like Lane say porn 2.0 is here to stay, given how easy it is to post and view material online. Now lawmakers need to catch up with tech-savvy Internet users, and deal with the potential emotional and psychological damage lurking for "ex-girlfriends" around the world.
Stay up to date with the latest Sex & Relationships headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ateo on Jul 10, 2007 1:14 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They say your name needs to "google well" these days because HR departments are using it to check out your Myspace or whatever else they can find to try to dig up some dirt.
I suppose this site is the ultimate in "not googling well" other than perhaps showing up in a sex offender database.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Because, of course...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Welcome to the 21st century
Posted by: drad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ateo on Jul 10, 2007 1:58 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've only got a short time on this dirt ball and an even shorter time where we are young, fit, and healthy so we might as well make the most of it. I feel really bad for the person that dies without doing anything with their life.
No travel, no booze, no drugs, no sex, no exotic food.
Just school, college, debt, work, death. Sounds like the conservative agenda.
Back in the day they at least expected you to shack up with some chick and produce a couple of kids. That's unnecessary these days with labor coming in from Mexico/China/India/Russia.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nothing wrong with it
Posted by: JCrowe
» RE: Nothing wrong with it
Posted by: Cruella
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JCrowe on Jul 10, 2007 3:40 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Poor ex-girlfriends..."Anything can be abused"
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: skybluesky on Jul 10, 2007 7:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope you can find a girlfriend whom you can respect, but judging by your comments, you aren't going to attract a woman. Have fun with your "girlies."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Poor ex-girlfriends...
Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: Poor ex-girlfriends...
Posted by: dover23
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jul 10, 2007 10:28 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
None of that prevents you from being a total scum for publishing the pictures against their wishes. That violates an essential human trust.
It also makes relations between men and women (well, homosexuals have the same issues) just that much less trusting and more difficult. Thanks a lot. I'm just glad I'm out of that particular game (married a long time).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: angryyoungwoman on Jul 10, 2007 2:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cruella on Jul 10, 2007 2:53 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Clever trick. Good post, that
Posted by: oregoncharles
» uh oh.....is that me on there?
Posted by: psychochurch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LMNOP on Jul 10, 2007 4:10 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There undoubtedly are cases where pornography had a deleterious effect on its consumer, but most pornography consumers are not demonstrably damaged.
I realize that some people say that all pornographic models and consumers are degraded, exploited or in some way damaged by the production and consumption of pornography. But I don’t agree. There is no convincing evidence for that.
The principle energy against pornography is the same as it is against all other so-called vices like gambling, recreational drug use, promiscuity and prostitution: an arbitrary moral judgment against these and related behaviors inculcated by the dominant culture. No other reason.
However, you can’t very well make that your public argument - that it’s just plain wrong – because most people don’t care what someone outside of their moral milieu disapproves of. Muslims disapprove of naked-faced women. Playboys disapprove of virginity. So what?
You have to give reasons – use reason – and show that your position is logical, even if it isn’t, even if your arguments are specious. So, we say that pornography promotes sexual violence or pedophilia. We say that marijuana has no medicinal value, but that it is a gateway to worse things. We say that access to contraceptives promotes promiscuity and that access to clean needles promotes IV drug abuse.
That’s why we’ll never get beyond this point in my lifetime. Many will say, “Dammit, porno just is harmful, that’s obvious, and that’s all there is to it”, and a few will say the opposite.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ationalizing A Moral Judgment
Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: One third of users...
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: One third of users...
Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: One third of users...
Posted by: Tombo
» RE: One third of users...
Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: Rationalizing A Moral Judgment
Posted by: cindi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: yellow on Jul 10, 2007 5:47 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is obvious why most women resent porn. They feel that they are being forced to compete with an unrealistic ideal contrived by male fantasies. They also feel porn breeds unrealistic expectations with regard to performance, appearance, size and stamina. It is also addicting. People can become somewhat damaged if they are overly obsessed with porn. Of course, if this is the case, the person was probably damaged to begin with and the porn was only a catalyst for his/her malaise.
Overall Porn is pretty harmless for normally healthy folks who just want to spice things up a bit. Aside for the obsessive and outraged feminazi fanatics, who think porn is the most powerfully dangerous political statement since Mein Kampf, most men and women simply shrug it off. I have always disagreed with the late Andrea Dworkin (whose early books were actually interesting) and Catherine MacKinnon about the subject and think their energies are misplaced. Besides there are more important things to worry about these days. Most people who really hate porn have issues and are just acting out. Porn is here to stay and why not? Its not really harmful. And it is getting more popular. My advise to feminists is just get over it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Reading comprehension?
Posted by: maddy
» Klein and gang demonised porn in the 70s
Posted by: Bobsays
Comments are closed-
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Jul 10, 2007 6:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
bit torrent is a completely legal tool. it's how whatever is transferred across it that must pass a litmus test. sharing out the latest michael moore flick to all your friends? bit torrent is still legal, but if you don't have the rights to do so, the activity isn't.
sharing out a home video of your dog humping your least favourite relative's leg? that's legal as can be.
Sunny Freeman shoulda proofed his/her copy--or, at least buy a clue and know what he/she is talking about first.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Illegal?
Posted by: OrsonWells
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cruella on Jul 10, 2007 6:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I like your idea, but....
Posted by: supercrisp
» Already exists, actually...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: This really made me sick CRUELLA, YOUR LINK DOESN"T WORK
Posted by: maribelle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jul 10, 2007 6:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we are going to discuss the prevalence of amateur porn, lets also discuss why it exists in the first place and what it means in a broader cultural context. I know thats a rather open ended and broad discussion to have... but I think it would be an interesting and beneficial one.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Just more mainstreaming of the porn aesthetic...
Posted by: skybluesky
» As did you...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Excellent points.
Posted by: Coleman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bemf on Jul 10, 2007 7:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» One has to wonder...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: One has to wonder...
Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: One has to wonder...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Hmm... Industry features do not necessarily mean consent.
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
» RE: Hmm... Industry features do not necessarily mean consent.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Long history of criminal involvement in the porn industry.
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
» RE: Hmm... Street gangs have also sometimes gotten into producing porn.
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
Comments are closed-
Posted by: youngdem on Jul 10, 2007 8:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: boysen on Jul 10, 2007 8:34 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To reduce the argument to a discussion of ex-girlfriends or pro-pornography 'empowered' women is to miss the real damage being done - to miss the elephant in the room. It also takes the focus off of the non-target group - men. Men make the vast majority of pornography, they consume it and they make money off of it. You can talk about all the 'co-eds dancing their way through college that you want, but that is the insignificant minority in an industry that reduces women to body parts and leaves women in a second class role in our society. The owner of the club - is HE making more than the women? Picture the men that are paying for those co-eds. They're NOT freaks, or perverts or miscreants - they're businessmen with disposable income, they're fathers and bosses, lawyers, politicians, working class stiffs.
They have some drinks, drop some cash and go home to their wives. The next day they play golf with the boys and then go to the office - where they see the women they work with - and because of last night, they get to look at their secretary OR THEIR BOSS as just another 'piece', just like the co-ed on stage the night before. One aspect does not exist independent of the others. And the demands on women, reinforced by women and men, to fit a sexual type-casting system in our culture - is driven by porn.
You can't talk Playboy without Female Trafficking. You can't talk about 'basement porn' without talking about the fact that TIME WARNER, AT&T and GM makes BILLIONS off of pay-per-view and cable pornography in living rooms and hotels all over the world. Rupert Murdoch and Bush 43 talk out of one side of their mouths about the 'moral depravity' in the culture, but get the REAL economic and social benefits of the industry they pretend to detest.
Watch "The Girls Next Door" - wow, look at those well off women, classy photos, clean living - nothing wrong there, right? Now look at Mr. Heff - he OWNS 3 women. 3 women work diligently to keep him happy all the time. Or The Bachelor, where one man gets to pick from 20 women competing for a chance to get hitched. AWESOME. What a great model for every young American boy to aspire to. Not only that, what a great model to feel Entitled to as a man. Now go back to work, where your boss might be a woman - now look at Hillary Clinton. Think there might be a taste of backlash in porn? Where what Really sells - is cruelty toward and domination of women.
Where what is created and bought by men routinely has women on their knees.
Of course, that's just one man's opinion. And I can't speak from 'outside' the system - I am a part of it. I am contributing to it, whether I like it or not.
A wise man I know talks about the fact that we don't need LESS sex in our culture - we need MORE - and to go along with it, we need HONEST education and honest discourse.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: boysen
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: frosty86
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: frosty86
» You don't think much of women?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: boysen
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: frosty86
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» just out of curiosity...
Posted by: ethanay
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Chuck0 on Jul 10, 2007 9:55 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article just misses the fact that people have been making DIY porn for a long time. Labeling it "Porn 2.0" is just silly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This article is just plain wrong
Posted by: sss4r
» RE: This article is just plain wrong
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: This article is just plain wrong
Posted by: Sushi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sss4r on Jul 10, 2007 10:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nonsense, all the serious scientists read Cosmo...
Posted by: Allison
» 15% of Cosmo readers
Posted by: fanny666
Comments are closed-
Posted by: messedup on Jul 10, 2007 12:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for the tips on the new porn sites.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» stupidest comment I've ever read
Posted by: deborama
» RE: stupidest comment I've ever read
Posted by: Sushi
» RE: stupidest comment I've ever read
Posted by: messedup
» Smartest comment here
Posted by: Bobsays
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jul 10, 2007 12:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because commercial interests wish to track you, and hey it's a great way for governments and security police to watch you, your image is traded and used ... and you've no say in this.
People need to understand that their image is theirs... no one has brought up this simple right, a right we as free individuals will need if we are to survive a world where who you are isn't determined by you, but what all those millions of cameras in your home, iPhone, car, highway, street, sees.
And hey, so you think I'm not watching you through the camera on your computer? Think again.
Demand your image be your own.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HughScott on Jul 10, 2007 1:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My feelings changed, however, after reading the last sentence which said, “Now lawmakers need to catch up with tech-savvy Internet users, and deal with the potential emotional and psychological damage lurking for ‘ex-girlfriends’ around the world.”
Isn’t that called “censorship?” And what about the idea that individuals should be reponsible for their actions including reckless behavior -- such as making sex tapes without thinking of the consequences?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Whitecliff on Jul 10, 2007 4:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YouPorn.com is excellent because it takes the profit out of porn. It allows amateurs to upload their own material so that the world can see REAL people having sex instead of these disgusting California fake-porn types.
YouPorn.com is a revolutionary idea, and I look forward to the impending bankruptcy of America's 'mainstream' porno industry. Only a moron would pay for porn in the 21st Century.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Them and slide-ruler companies...
Posted by: Sushi
» The democratization of porn
Posted by: Whitecliff
» RE: The democratization of porn
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» You are right: DIY porn has done more to encourage human understanding...
Posted by: Bobsays
Comments are closed-
Posted by: anotherday on Jul 10, 2007 5:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the pornography in these sites is supposed to represent something new and different in pornography then they are failures according to what popped up on my computer when I checked them out today. "New and improved!" is the come-on for every new product introduced to a given market. Napster sure as hell hasn't made the music industry more democratic or made talented musicians more popular than ex-strippers singing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It is interesting...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: It is interesting...
Posted by: FireKittie1982
» I'm well aware of them...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Money for nothing, sex for free
Posted by: Whitecliff
» RE: Money for nothing, sex for free
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» NO DEMOCRACY IN PORN
Posted by: Just Curious
» Hmm... in what ways???
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive on Jul 11, 2007 10:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Absolutely NO CASE was made for "harm done to victims of porn 2.0." This article is dangerous in the noise it makes (like sucking through ones teeth) about the harm. The writer is flailing around for more legislation. Good God! We are over come with legislation. The absurd and enraged suppression demanded by writers and responders on this subject makes my skin crawl.
We are the laughing stock of Europe when it comes to our attitudes about sex. Let innocence have its day. Repress with legislation when we can find excessive victims.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You should really try reading some of McKinnon and Dworkin.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Joe on Jul 12, 2007 5:20 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this may be a surprise to some liberals but everyone is not a victim.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gsaephanh on Jul 13, 2007 1:03 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office is taking calls voting for Impeachment of Bush/Cheney at 202-225-0100. PLEASE CALL TODAY. At the toll free capitol switchboard #s below, you can also call your particular district’s congressional representative to insist that they support impeachment for Cheney. E.g., for Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s H Res 333 for Cheney; please say:
“In addition to supporting Kucinich’s bill H Res 333, I would also support a similar Impeachment Resolution against Bush, especially after the disgraceful Scooter Libby sentence “commuting” and the following issues: wiretapping, torture, numerous 9/11 intelligence misrepresentations, the continued occupation of Iraq, gross negligence during Hurrican Katrina, the Valerie Plame CIA leak, […list your other grounds…] ..”[see resolutions on tab #2 for other grounds for impeachment]).
LANIC requests that Americans call today…Not tomorrow or next week. Every call adds to the extraordinary grasswoots and nationwide movement’s pressures on House Speaker Pelosi to act now .before further innocent lives are lost in Iraq and elsewhere. Last week 28 Americans lost their lives. Over the July 4, 2007 weekend over 400 Iraqis lost their lives…
SEND MAIL TO HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: Attn: Nancy Pelosi, House Representative/Speaker of the House, 235 Cannon H.O.B., Washington, DC 20515 ; Pelosi’s Fax # 202 225-8259
Pelosi’s e-mail address :
Americanvoices@mail.house.gov
CC her at: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
Please send her a pro-impeachment email and a specific call to endorse H Res 333. Note: On Saturdays/Sundays, Pelosi’s office has a comment line at which you can leave a voicemail. Your message will be transcribed and relayed to her. Please do encourage your family/friends to contact the same number. Refer them to www.bcimpeach.com for the actual telephone #s & contact info.
Find out who your Congressional representative is and call that person. For toll free numbers to your Congress rep: (800) 828 – 0498; (800) 459 – 1887; or (866) 340 – 9281. You will be connected once you name your congress person. The staff aid should take detailed notes and provided to the Congressional representative.
Final Note: Please say “I support Impeachment based on ____. I’d like to know where “[representative name]” stands on this issue.” Let’s strike while the Libby fury keeps the iron hot! Please call and Act Now!
PLEASE ALSO CONTACT THESE KEY CONGRESSIONAL REPS RE IMPEACHMENT:
Representative Capitol Phone Capitol Fax
Howard Berman 202-225-4695 202-225-3196
& 818-944-7200 818-994-1050
MAILING ADDRESS FOR BERMAN
Congressman Howard L. Berman
14546 Hamlin Street, Suite 202
Van Nuys, CA 91411
Henry Waxman 202-225-3976 202-225-4099
Loreta Sanchez 202 225-2965 202-225-5859
D. Watson 202 225-7084 202-225-2422
LindaSanchez 202 225-6676 202-226-1012
L. Solis 202 225-5464 202-225-5467
A. G. Eshoo 202 225-8104 202-225-8890
L. Roybal/Allard 202 225-1766 202-225-0350
http://www.bcimpeach.com/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ateo on Jul 10, 2007 1:14 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They say your name needs to "google well" these days because HR departments are using it to check out your Myspace or whatever else they can find to try to dig up some dirt.
I suppose this site is the ultimate in "not googling well" other than perhaps showing up in a sex offender database.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Because, of course...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Welcome to the 21st century
Posted by: drad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ateo on Jul 10, 2007 1:58 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've only got a short time on this dirt ball and an even shorter time where we are young, fit, and healthy so we might as well make the most of it. I feel really bad for the person that dies without doing anything with their life.
No travel, no booze, no drugs, no sex, no exotic food.
Just school, college, debt, work, death. Sounds like the conservative agenda.
Back in the day they at least expected you to shack up with some chick and produce a couple of kids. That's unnecessary these days with labor coming in from Mexico/China/India/Russia.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nothing wrong with it
Posted by: JCrowe
» RE: Nothing wrong with it
Posted by: Cruella
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JCrowe on Jul 10, 2007 3:40 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Poor ex-girlfriends..."Anything can be abused"
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: skybluesky on Jul 10, 2007 7:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope you can find a girlfriend whom you can respect, but judging by your comments, you aren't going to attract a woman. Have fun with your "girlies."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Poor ex-girlfriends...
Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: Poor ex-girlfriends...
Posted by: dover23
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jul 10, 2007 10:28 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
None of that prevents you from being a total scum for publishing the pictures against their wishes. That violates an essential human trust.
It also makes relations between men and women (well, homosexuals have the same issues) just that much less trusting and more difficult. Thanks a lot. I'm just glad I'm out of that particular game (married a long time).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: angryyoungwoman on Jul 10, 2007 2:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cruella on Jul 10, 2007 2:53 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Clever trick. Good post, that
Posted by: oregoncharles
» uh oh.....is that me on there?
Posted by: psychochurch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LMNOP on Jul 10, 2007 4:10 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There undoubtedly are cases where pornography had a deleterious effect on its consumer, but most pornography consumers are not demonstrably damaged.
I realize that some people say that all pornographic models and consumers are degraded, exploited or in some way damaged by the production and consumption of pornography. But I don’t agree. There is no convincing evidence for that.
The principle energy against pornography is the same as it is against all other so-called vices like gambling, recreational drug use, promiscuity and prostitution: an arbitrary moral judgment against these and related behaviors inculcated by the dominant culture. No other reason.
However, you can’t very well make that your public argument - that it’s just plain wrong – because most people don’t care what someone outside of their moral milieu disapproves of. Muslims disapprove of naked-faced women. Playboys disapprove of virginity. So what?
You have to give reasons – use reason – and show that your position is logical, even if it isn’t, even if your arguments are specious. So, we say that pornography promotes sexual violence or pedophilia. We say that marijuana has no medicinal value, but that it is a gateway to worse things. We say that access to contraceptives promotes promiscuity and that access to clean needles promotes IV drug abuse.
That’s why we’ll never get beyond this point in my lifetime. Many will say, “Dammit, porno just is harmful, that’s obvious, and that’s all there is to it”, and a few will say the opposite.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ationalizing A Moral Judgment
Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: One third of users...
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: One third of users...
Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: One third of users...
Posted by: Tombo
» RE: One third of users...
Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: Rationalizing A Moral Judgment
Posted by: cindi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: yellow on Jul 10, 2007 5:47 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is obvious why most women resent porn. They feel that they are being forced to compete with an unrealistic ideal contrived by male fantasies. They also feel porn breeds unrealistic expectations with regard to performance, appearance, size and stamina. It is also addicting. People can become somewhat damaged if they are overly obsessed with porn. Of course, if this is the case, the person was probably damaged to begin with and the porn was only a catalyst for his/her malaise.
Overall Porn is pretty harmless for normally healthy folks who just want to spice things up a bit. Aside for the obsessive and outraged feminazi fanatics, who think porn is the most powerfully dangerous political statement since Mein Kampf, most men and women simply shrug it off. I have always disagreed with the late Andrea Dworkin (whose early books were actually interesting) and Catherine MacKinnon about the subject and think their energies are misplaced. Besides there are more important things to worry about these days. Most people who really hate porn have issues and are just acting out. Porn is here to stay and why not? Its not really harmful. And it is getting more popular. My advise to feminists is just get over it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Reading comprehension?
Posted by: maddy
» Klein and gang demonised porn in the 70s
Posted by: Bobsays
Comments are closed-
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Jul 10, 2007 6:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
bit torrent is a completely legal tool. it's how whatever is transferred across it that must pass a litmus test. sharing out the latest michael moore flick to all your friends? bit torrent is still legal, but if you don't have the rights to do so, the activity isn't.
sharing out a home video of your dog humping your least favourite relative's leg? that's legal as can be.
Sunny Freeman shoulda proofed his/her copy--or, at least buy a clue and know what he/she is talking about first.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Illegal?
Posted by: OrsonWells
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cruella on Jul 10, 2007 6:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I like your idea, but....
Posted by: supercrisp
» Already exists, actually...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: This really made me sick CRUELLA, YOUR LINK DOESN"T WORK
Posted by: maribelle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jul 10, 2007 6:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we are going to discuss the prevalence of amateur porn, lets also discuss why it exists in the first place and what it means in a broader cultural context. I know thats a rather open ended and broad discussion to have... but I think it would be an interesting and beneficial one.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Just more mainstreaming of the porn aesthetic...
Posted by: skybluesky
» As did you...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Excellent points.
Posted by: Coleman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bemf on Jul 10, 2007 7:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» One has to wonder...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: One has to wonder...
Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: One has to wonder...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Hmm... Industry features do not necessarily mean consent.
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
» RE: Hmm... Industry features do not necessarily mean consent.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Long history of criminal involvement in the porn industry.
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
» RE: Hmm... Street gangs have also sometimes gotten into producing porn.
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
Comments are closed-
Posted by: youngdem on Jul 10, 2007 8:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: boysen on Jul 10, 2007 8:34 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To reduce the argument to a discussion of ex-girlfriends or pro-pornography 'empowered' women is to miss the real damage being done - to miss the elephant in the room. It also takes the focus off of the non-target group - men. Men make the vast majority of pornography, they consume it and they make money off of it. You can talk about all the 'co-eds dancing their way through college that you want, but that is the insignificant minority in an industry that reduces women to body parts and leaves women in a second class role in our society. The owner of the club - is HE making more than the women? Picture the men that are paying for those co-eds. They're NOT freaks, or perverts or miscreants - they're businessmen with disposable income, they're fathers and bosses, lawyers, politicians, working class stiffs.
They have some drinks, drop some cash and go home to their wives. The next day they play golf with the boys and then go to the office - where they see the women they work with - and because of last night, they get to look at their secretary OR THEIR BOSS as just another 'piece', just like the co-ed on stage the night before. One aspect does not exist independent of the others. And the demands on women, reinforced by women and men, to fit a sexual type-casting system in our culture - is driven by porn.
You can't talk Playboy without Female Trafficking. You can't talk about 'basement porn' without talking about the fact that TIME WARNER, AT&T and GM makes BILLIONS off of pay-per-view and cable pornography in living rooms and hotels all over the world. Rupert Murdoch and Bush 43 talk out of one side of their mouths about the 'moral depravity' in the culture, but get the REAL economic and social benefits of the industry they pretend to detest.
Watch "The Girls Next Door" - wow, look at those well off women, classy photos, clean living - nothing wrong there, right? Now look at Mr. Heff - he OWNS 3 women. 3 women work diligently to keep him happy all the time. Or The Bachelor, where one man gets to pick from 20 women competing for a chance to get hitched. AWESOME. What a great model for every young American boy to aspire to. Not only that, what a great model to feel Entitled to as a man. Now go back to work, where your boss might be a woman - now look at Hillary Clinton. Think there might be a taste of backlash in porn? Where what Really sells - is cruelty toward and domination of women.
Where what is created and bought by men routinely has women on their knees.
Of course, that's just one man's opinion. And I can't speak from 'outside' the system - I am a part of it. I am contributing to it, whether I like it or not.
A wise man I know talks about the fact that we don't need LESS sex in our culture - we need MORE - and to go along with it, we need HONEST education and honest discourse.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: boysen
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: frosty86
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: frosty86
» You don't think much of women?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: boysen
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: frosty86
» RE: Another Complication - What is consent?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» just out of curiosity...
Posted by: ethanay
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Chuck0 on Jul 10, 2007 9:55 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article just misses the fact that people have been making DIY porn for a long time. Labeling it "Porn 2.0" is just silly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This article is just plain wrong
Posted by: sss4r
» RE: This article is just plain wrong
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: This article is just plain wrong
Posted by: Sushi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sss4r on Jul 10, 2007 10:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nonsense, all the serious scientists read Cosmo...
Posted by: Allison
» 15% of Cosmo readers
Posted by: fanny666
Comments are closed-
Posted by: messedup on Jul 10, 2007 12:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for the tips on the new porn sites.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» stupidest comment I've ever read
Posted by: deborama
» RE: stupidest comment I've ever read
Posted by: Sushi
» RE: stupidest comment I've ever read
Posted by: messedup
» Smartest comment here
Posted by: Bobsays
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jul 10, 2007 12:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because commercial interests wish to track you, and hey it's a great way for governments and security police to watch you, your image is traded and used ... and you've no say in this.
People need to understand that their image is theirs... no one has brought up this simple right, a right we as free individuals will need if we are to survive a world where who you are isn't determined by you, but what all those millions of cameras in your home, iPhone, car, highway, street, sees.
And hey, so you think I'm not watching you through the camera on your computer? Think again.
Demand your image be your own.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HughScott on Jul 10, 2007 1:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My feelings changed, however, after reading the last sentence which said, “Now lawmakers need to catch up with tech-savvy Internet users, and deal with the potential emotional and psychological damage lurking for ‘ex-girlfriends’ around the world.”
Isn’t that called “censorship?” And what about the idea that individuals should be reponsible for their actions including reckless behavior -- such as making sex tapes without thinking of the consequences?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Whitecliff on Jul 10, 2007 4:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YouPorn.com is excellent because it takes the profit out of porn. It allows amateurs to upload their own material so that the world can see REAL people having sex instead of these disgusting California fake-porn types.
YouPorn.com is a revolutionary idea, and I look forward to the impending bankruptcy of America's 'mainstream' porno industry. Only a moron would pay for porn in the 21st Century.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Them and slide-ruler companies...
Posted by: Sushi
» The democratization of porn
Posted by: Whitecliff
» RE: The democratization of porn
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» You are right: DIY porn has done more to encourage human understanding...
Posted by: Bobsays
Comments are closed-
Posted by: anotherday on Jul 10, 2007 5:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the pornography in these sites is supposed to represent something new and different in pornography then they are failures according to what popped up on my computer when I checked them out today. "New and improved!" is the come-on for every new product introduced to a given market. Napster sure as hell hasn't made the music industry more democratic or made talented musicians more popular than ex-strippers singing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It is interesting...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: It is interesting...
Posted by: FireKittie1982
» I'm well aware of them...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Money for nothing, sex for free
Posted by: Whitecliff
» RE: Money for nothing, sex for free
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» NO DEMOCRACY IN PORN
Posted by: Just Curious
» Hmm... in what ways???
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive on Jul 11, 2007 10:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Absolutely NO CASE was made for "harm done to victims of porn 2.0." This article is dangerous in the noise it makes (like sucking through ones teeth) about the harm. The writer is flailing around for more legislation. Good God! We are over come with legislation. The absurd and enraged suppression demanded by writers and responders on this subject makes my skin crawl.
We are the laughing stock of Europe when it comes to our attitudes about sex. Let innocence have its day. Repress with legislation when we can find excessive victims.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You should really try reading some of McKinnon and Dworkin.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Joe on Jul 12, 2007 5:20 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this may be a surprise to some liberals but everyone is not a victim.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gsaephanh on Jul 13, 2007 1:03 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office is taking calls voting for Impeachment of Bush/Cheney at 202-225-0100. PLEASE CALL TODAY. At the toll free capitol switchboard #s below, you can also call your particular district’s congressional representative to insist that they support impeachment for Cheney. E.g., for Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s H Res 333 for Cheney; please say:
“In addition to supporting Kucinich’s bill H Res 333, I would also support a similar Impeachment Resolution against Bush, especially after the disgraceful Scooter Libby sentence “commuting” and the following issues: wiretapping, torture, numerous 9/11 intelligence misrepresentations, the continued occupation of Iraq, gross negligence during Hurrican Katrina, the Valerie Plame CIA leak, […list your other grounds…] ..”[see resolutions on tab #2 for other grounds for impeachment]).
LANIC requests that Americans call today…Not tomorrow or next week. Every call adds to the extraordinary grasswoots and nationwide movement’s pressures on House Speaker Pelosi to act now .before further innocent lives are lost in Iraq and elsewhere. Last week 28 Americans lost their lives. Over the July 4, 2007 weekend over 400 Iraqis lost their lives…
SEND MAIL TO HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: Attn: Nancy Pelosi, House Representative/Speaker of the House, 235 Cannon H.O.B., Washington, DC 20515 ; Pelosi’s Fax # 202 225-8259
Pelosi’s e-mail address :
Americanvoices@mail.house.gov
CC her at: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
Please send her a pro-impeachment email and a specific call to endorse H Res 333. Note: On Saturdays/Sundays, Pelosi’s office has a comment line at which you can leave a voicemail. Your message will be transcribed and relayed to her. Please do encourage your family/friends to contact the same number. Refer them to www.bcimpeach.com for the actual telephone #s & contact info.
Find out who your Congressional representative is and call that person. For toll free numbers to your Congress rep: (800) 828 – 0498; (800) 459 – 1887; or (866) 340 – 9281. You will be connected once you name your congress person. The staff aid should take detailed notes and provided to the Congressional representative.
Final Note: Please say “I support Impeachment based on ____. I’d like to know where “[representative name]” stands on this issue.” Let’s strike while the Libby fury keeps the iron hot! Please call and Act Now!
PLEASE ALSO CONTACT THESE KEY CONGRESSIONAL REPS RE IMPEACHMENT:
Representative Capitol Phone Capitol Fax
Howard Berman 202-225-4695 202-225-3196
& 818-944-7200 818-994-1050
MAILING ADDRESS FOR BERMAN
Congressman Howard L. Berman
14546 Hamlin Street, Suite 202
Van Nuys, CA 91411
Henry Waxman 202-225-3976 202-225-4099
Loreta Sanchez 202 225-2965 202-225-5859
D. Watson 202 225-7084 202-225-2422
LindaSanchez 202 225-6676 202-226-1012
L. Solis 202 225-5464 202-225-5467
A. G. Eshoo 202 225-8104 202-225-8890
L. Roybal/Allard 202 225-1766 202-225-0350
http://www.bcimpeach.com/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
'Reality' Show Lets You Decide If Women Get Abortions?
Sex Addiction: A B.S. Excuse for Not Thinking
Why Do People Want to Have Sex with the 9-Foot Tall Natives in 'Avatar'?




