Pornography

Why You Should Care About the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo, Even If You Don't Care for Porn

Nowhere do so many constitutional abuses converge as with government treatment of pornography and adult entertainment.

|

ENB

Greetings from the 2016 AVN Adult Entertainment Expo and Awards in Las Vegas. I'll be here for the next few days, bouncing between things like a panel on the porn industry's legal challenges to a mummification fetish demonstration to, of course, the main fan, business, and "novelty" expos, and reporting back here (with ample PG-13 pictures) about it all. So expect more than your usual share of porn-related content here at Reason.com this week. 

But why is Reason covering porn at all?, as some of our more evidently serious readers asked following my post about porn research Tuesday. Short answer: Because, come on, we need something to break up the Election 2016 coverage, no? Or perhaps a better answer is, why wouldn't Reason cover porn? It's not just prurience or juvenile posturing or the much-alleged libertarian tendency toward libertinism. Here are several important reasons why porn is a very important topic: 

It's the Statism, Stupid

Nowhere do so many constitutional abuses converge as with government treatment of pornography. Whether it's the old Moral Majority or the new Safe Space brigade, porn and other forms of sex work are an easy target for authoritarian impulses, be they justified by stodgy old theology or fashionable progressive ideology. And even when either side falls short of wanting to outright ban or severely censor erotic content, they mind little when legislators lobby all sorts of sin taxes, zoning laws, financial barriers, and excessive regulations at it. This should bother anyone concerned with limiting government in general. But even if you can't muster much sympathy for the sex industries, think about it this way: porn tends to serve as a canary in the coal mine, identifying what new loci of state power-grabs and bureaucracy we need to look out for. In other words, you can bet that any new censorship and regulatory precedents we set for sex work aren't going to stay solely in that realm. 

Sex Worker Rights

Pornography isn't just the end-product people fap to, of course; it's an industry comprised of lots and lots of individual workers. And these workers, like all workers, deserve equal protection under the law and equal protection from unconstitutional laws. Adult-business owners and sex workers shouldn't be singled out for regulations that similar entrepreneurs are exempt from, and they deserve a workplace free of undue discrimination and harassment at the hands of either unscrupulous employers, customers, or the state. 

Free Minds and Free Markets

The proliferation of porn in the 21st century—in all its weird and wonderful and sometimes terrible forms—is above all else a story about human sexuality, sure. But following close behind is a tale of the power of markets to drive entrepreneurial ingenuity and expand consumer choice. With every twist and turn in the technology market, the porn industry has found a way to adapt—and not just make use of new technologies but drive them. Porn performers themselves have also adapted, embracing social-media savvy branding and sidelines into sex toys, strip club performances, and myriad other avenues as appearing in videos alone became less lucrative.

Meanwhile, the ever-decreasing stigma around porn reflects a general loosening of repressive social mores, an increase in sex positivity, and perhaps even a positive narrative about social change more generally. Once a medium made mostly by men for men, porn has blossomed into an arena where female directors and producers can thrive, "feminist porn" is a thing, and racial and sexual minorities are (if too slowly) starting to gain more visibility and get treated with more respect. Add to that the success of amateur porn and all sorts of niche sites and genres, and it's yet more evidence of the industry adapting in ways that benefit not just its own bottom line but all-around creativity and consumer choice. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

130 responses to “Why You Should Care About the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo, Even If You Don't Care for Porn

  1. And ’cause every other bit of coverage is gonna be ‘way more juvenile than the commentariat could ever hope to achieve.
    At one time, CES got blind-sided by the fact that consumer electronics might include an interest in sexuality along with music and games; they stuck the X-rated exhibits down on ‘level 42’ at McCormick Hall and out in the boonies in Vegas, and the coverage in the show guides was ‘snicker, snicker…’
    About what most of the MSM is gonna do here.

  2. But why is Reason covering porn at all?

    Who doesn’t like porn?

    1. Everybody, in public; nobody, in private.

    2. I was wondering the same thing.

  3. “Even if you don’t care for porn”

    Anyone up this late is definitely looking at porn.

    1. I don’t even understand what ENB is trying to say with that statement. Shouldn’t she use the /Sarc tag?

    2. Speak for your own time zone.

    3. I googled porn and this page is what came up!

      1. Your ten favorite porn stars with weird secrets. Number three will surprise you!

  4. OT: I haven’t seen the Plug since he lost that bet to Playa. Did he defenestrate himself?

    1. If he actually lost the money that he said he bet, I assume that he’s been kicked out of the house.

      1. Oh, but I still expect him to make the donation to Reason.

      2. Pl?ya Manhattan.|1.21.16 @ 12:44AM|#
        “If he actually lost the money that he said he bet, I assume that he’s been kicked out of the house.”

        You know the folks who go to Vegas and WIN!, right? And you know as well as I do they’re the same folks who used to get 20MPG outa that mid-’70s Cad convertible; they ‘filled’ the tank with 10 gallons, and they’d gone, well, sorta like close to 200 miles if 178 is close enough…
        Nobody beats the house, and turd is the prime example. Turd lies.

        1. “You know the folks who go to Vegas and WIN!, right?”

          Yep. Those people are why Vegas Casinos keeps losing money year after year.

  5. This sounds less like an article and more like you pleading your case to the accountants at reason why your pre booked tickets should be expensable.

    1. That thought occurred to me, as well.

      1. This is why she shouldn’t have to explain.

        We Cover Porn Because Porn
        Piss Off If You Can’t Joke A Fuck.
        by ENB

        Although it is a bit silly how she gets comments on, “What, another abortion article? Obsess much?” She has a beat, and it’s frankly weird that some don’t get that.

          1. Citation required.

            /Tim

        1. I don’t think there’s anyone here who doesn’t understand that sexual rights are Ms. Nolan-Brown’s beat. But, there’s a bit of a difference, isn’t there? With abortion, for example, she generally covers matters of abortion rights. Her linked article on porn was with regard to popular tastes in porn content. If she’s offering that up as an example of her intended writing on the topic, it seems like a topic of limited interest to a libertarian magazine or website.

          But, as I say below, I’m hardly going to get my knickers in a twist because someone’s talking about porn. This isn’t the faculty lounge at Oberlin. And there’s plenty of culture articles only tangentially related to libertarian politics on the site.

          1. Right down below, there’s Eddie discussing that ENB should attend a conference sponsored by a dozen evangelical organizations who want to talk about Kim Davis. Apparently, that ENB has a beat cannot be mentioned enough.

            And do we restrict ourselves here to political rights, or do we also discuss political content as well?

            But I suspect most are like you, maybe feeling the urge to point out minor quibbles but otherwise not fussed. This is why, you perceive, I suggested she stop thinking about it and write wot she likes. She’s taking us too seriously, and down that road lies madness.

            1. Well, if you haven’t figured out by now, Eddie’s sort of a special case.

              And, really, how much does “context” really matter? If you have rights, it strikes me that they exist independent of context. That’s why we call them rights and not allowances. And I’m pretty sure it’s possible to grasp the context of porn without going out to Vegas.

              That said, if Ms. Nolan-Brown can justify the trip, more power to her.

            2. It just comes down to the difference between libertarianism and libertinism. Obviously the latter appeals to the cultural libertarian crowd (“cosmos” or what have you), but it isn’t essential for political libertarianism and may drive away some people unnecessarily. Similarly, Reason can report on the social destruction caused by the drug war without becoming High Times (and it does).

              In fact, we have a society that is both authoritarian and libertine, and the tension between the two is the source of a lot of problems. There are way too many people out there who have done drugs (and aren’t terribly ashamed of it) and yet also support the drug war, because crime or crack babies or whatever. From a practical perspective, people do abuse drugs, alcohol, and sex. Not everyone, of course, but we shouldn’t pretend that there aren’t people who use freedom to ruin their own lives and the lives of those around them. A society that strongly promoted the virtue of temperance, yet avoided the use of violence to compel temperate behavior, would function a lot better, IMO.

  6. human sexuality

    What does this mean? I’ve genuinely never understood what people are referring to when they discuss “sexuality”, whether it be “expressing” or “exploring” it. Is it like spirituality, but with sex instead of spirit? How does it have a story? I feel like this is a word for which people have different understandings, and isn’t really useful for explaining anything. A quick NGram search shows a large increase in the late 60’s, which seems about right.

    1. It refers to the fact that the race is generally divided into two opposing and inimical sexes.

      1. That huge fucking phallus isn’t going to relate to itself.

    2. The ones I can’t follow most of the time is “spirituality” and “mentality”. Nine times out of ten, they must either be just a fancy way of saying something for which there’s a commoner, obviouser word, or else they don’t seem to clearly denote anything.

  7. (with ample PG-13 pictures)

    Can we talk about how the addition of the PG-13 rating ruined movies?

    1. Rated G [as in G spot]. That made sense. 13? Unlucky number? PG? WTF?
      Ratings are for authority fellators anyway.

      1. It means jacking off.

  8. And yet conversely, society if becoming more and more prudish to the point where VIctorians would laugh at us.

    Okay, they’d probably laugh at us for drugs and prostitution being illegal. But still, the prudery of today’s youth thanks to “social justice” is reaching alarming levels. Directly affecting video games. And ruined science fiction and fantasy. And RPGs.

    1. Think of the children. It’s hamstringing the fuck out of them. I remember when even if our mothers was intent on some kind of restraining of stimuli to offensively mild levels our fathers took it, as they ought to do, as their Christian duty to making our experience as extreme as possible, so we’d be in some way prepared for being alive some day.

      As for science fiction–you musb reading the wrong books.

      And it’s not this stupidity that’s ruinning r?le playing games. Rather it’s that the last generation of game designers have no grounding in history or mythology or literature, areas where previous designers were very strong, and it come through making their fantasies a lot less stupid and boring. It’s A1 cockups all round in this shit.

      1. “As for science fiction–you musb reading the wrong books.”

        I tend to agree with JeremyR. I routinely jump back and forth between modern day Science fiction and stories written decades past. I’m currently reading Poul Anderson stories from the 1950’s. He was a young writer at that point and the stories tend to show it, and yet the stories are still better than much of what is written today.

  9. Sex is the meeting of gametes. It happens in so many novel and unpredictable ways. At least we live in times when and where we can discuss it. Now if we could all just leave each other alone on the practice part.

  10. Whether it’s the old Moral Majority or the new Safe Space brigade…

    Bootleggers and Baptists. No, wait, hear me out. In this case, the safe spacers are the Baptists, because they’re the true believers. The Christian right is the bootleggers, because they’re profiting by the scourge’s existence, gaining votes and power off fighting it. I don’t know, you figure it out.

    1. Well said. I think.

    2. Do you or Gilmore sleep?

      1. Fist is software, it had no flesh in need of rest.

        Gilmore may actually be a hive of insects, so part of him is always sleeping.

        1. Yeah, Gilmoer makes alot of sense LOL

  11. You had me at porn

    1. Okay, it’s 6 a.m. and you’re discussing porn. Is it time for an intervention?

      1. Well past that point:)

  12. No matter how bad it gets here, we’ll always have an England to mock:

    Cab driver suspended from school run for kissing own daughters.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..hters.html

  13. Meanwhile, in China, they have REAL problems, dammit!

    “Mini driver changes lanes 10 times in three minutes without using indicator”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..cator.html

    1. “According to the police, the woman drove like this because her son was ill, so she was in a hurry.”

  14. Sorry, Ms. Nolan-Brown, the things you cite are perfectly legitimate and valid reasons to discuss the right to consume or produce porn. But, that’s different from discussing porn, per se, isn’t it?

    That said, have fun. I’m hardly going to get my knickers in a twist because someone’s talking about porn. This isn’t the faculty lounge at Oberlin. And there’s plenty of culture articles only tangentially related to libertarian politics on the site.

  15. So if Reason covers conferences on topics of interest to libertarians, I bet they regret missing these two back in November –

    “Two Conferences on Religious Liberty in Des Moines…

    “The National Religious Liberties Conference, called Freedom 2015, is meeting in Des Moines Friday and Saturday, drawing over 1600 Christians from around the country.

    “Conference attendees are concerned over cases like that of Kim Davis, the Kentucky County Clerk who went to jail for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Locally, Richard and Betty Odgaard were forced to close their Gortz Haus Gallery, after the Iowa Civil Rights Commission ruled they should allow a same-sex wedding in their facility, which was against their faith. They are speaking at the conference….

    “The conference is sponsored by 12 evangelical organizations, including American Family Association, Liberty Institute, Samaritan Ministries, and Generations.The conference will address religious liberty in the military, medical care, parenting, education, and the workplace.”

    1. And there was a Conference in Rome last month.

      “The main objective of the conference is to introduce the results of the world’s first systematic global investigation into the responses of Christian communities to the violation of their religious freedom….

      “The conference will feature plenary speakers from among the world’s most respected advocates of religious freedom. It will offer a lively discussion of the global persecution of Christians among church leaders, government officials, scholars, human rights activists, representatives of world religions, students, and the interested public.”

      Of course, there was a Global Warming conference at that time, so Reason was busy.

      1. But if you couldn’t make the Rome conference last year, there’s another conference in Rome on April 20, part of a larger series:

        “In order to discuss and promote an understanding of the relationship between religious liberty and economic freedom among present and future Catholic leaders around the world, the Acton Institute is holding a five-part international conference series ? One and Indivisible? The Relationship Between Religious and Economic Freedom.”

        1. The International Center for Law and Religion Studies at Brigham Young University law school is sponsoring a conference in Oxford, United Kingdom in September –

          “The Conference topic ? “Freedom of/for/from/within Religion: Differing Dimensions of a Common Right?” ? aims at considering the fundamental right of freedom of religion from differing perspectives, shedding light on its various and interconnected facets and addressing new challenges it faces in the modern world. Freedom of religion highlights the right to profess and manifest religion on both individual and collective levels, without undue limitations; freedom for religion stresses the need to grant religious communities the freedom required to play a positive role in building a just and cohesive society; freedom from religion underlines the right to live one’s life without being compelled to respect the tenets of any particular religion; freedom within religion addresses the rights that the faithful are entitled to enjoy within their religious communities.”

          (let me point out that by attending *international* conferences, Reason staffers would really be able to run up the ol’ expense account.)

      2. Interesting…. I would categorize these more under freedom of association rather than freedom of religion.

        Let’s do a little thought experiment: Let’s say instead of some mom ‘n pop shop we are talking about a big conference center hotel. Like the Marriott in downtown Atlanta. And instead of a gay wedding somebody wanted to hold a conference for NAMBLA or the White Power Party.

        So scenario 1: They hold the conference at the Marriott and protesters everywhere call for boycotts. Marriott is racist or supports child molesters or whatever, right?

        Or scenario 2: They decline to hold the conference on the grounds of “we don’t support what your group is doing and it is not the right fit for our venue”. They get sued by the American Nazi’s or whoever.

        In scenario 2, do they lose their lawsuit? It doesn’t seem all that likely.

        In scenario 1, won’t all of those protesters be precisely the same people who are running around trolling small town bakeries and pizza parlors trying to make some point about how backward and evil small business owners are and how they should lose their life’s work for being so evil and hateful?

        Is there any consistent legal principle here, or are we working on the “I don’t have a definition but I know it when I see it” version of legal authority?

        1. I think the distinction they’d make is that “discriminating against politically-unpopular groups like the White Power folks is legal, while discriminating against gays is illegal.”

          So I would modify the scenario just a tad:

          Instead of the Marriott, let’s use the hypothetical Herriot hotel chain, and let’s say it’s a closely-held corporation controlled by a zealous religious family.

          Let’s say that the Herriot rents its hotels to some Methodists one week, to some Sikhs the next week, but the third week refuses to rent space to the Aryan Nations Church, and the head of the Herriot is quoted in the press as saying “we don’t like the Aryan Nations religion, their religion is hateful and the Methodists and Sikhs are loving, and as a matter of religious conscience we only support other religions if they are loving.”

          Then the Aryan Nations Church could have a legal case for religious discrimination – *unless* of course the head of Herriot hotels can prevail with his own religious-freedom claim, that he shouldn’t be forced to act in violation of his religious conscience.

          1. I’ll take this hand-wringing over non-discrimination laws a lot more seriously when people get serious about *my* “Freedom of Association”.

            But even as they’re calling for laws to allow a baker to throw me to the curb while screaming “gays are ikcy, because god”, no one is seriously saying even a peep on my right to throw someone to the curb while screaming “your holy book calls for my death”.

            Until people are serious about that, it’s clear that the only thing they *are* serious about is continuing the long-standing tradition of using the law to stick it to gay people wherever and however they can.

            1. “no one is seriously saying even a peep on my right to throw someone to the curb while screaming “your holy book calls for my death”.”

              Just to be clear, you think “they” would deny your freedom to reject potential customers with different religious beliefs than yours? That would itself be an example of religious freedom – the very freedom “they” are defending.

              The laws “they” support protect gay as well as straight religionists.

              So I suppose my question is, will you support “them” in defending *your* religious freedom to choose your own customers?

              1. It seems the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group and part of the “them” you denounce, indeed supports the rights of pro-gay bakers.

              2. “Just to be clear, you think “they” would deny your freedom to reject potential customers with different religious beliefs than yours?”
                Based on the laws they propose and promote? Yep.

                Words are cheap. It’s easy for the ADF to talk about a case it’s not involved in that tangentially resembles the cases they keep losing, in an effort to appear fair-minded. But if you look into the details, they’re quite different. It’s easy to spout nice words when you know they’ll have no effect and cost you nothing.

                Actions? Actions are hard. And no one is doing a thing about the right of someone to eject a customer based on their religion (hint: state level action is not enough).

                So yeah. Like a said. No is serious about *my* Freedom of Association, so why should I believe they’re serious about the Freedom of Association for anyone else either?

    2. Holy fuck.

      1. Thanks to Google, finding those conferences was easy.

        1. Yeahr, and I just saved two dollars.

  16. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  17. I’m sorry I missed it this year.

    My t-shirt order ” What if someone gave an orgy and nobody came” was lost in the mail from the factory.

  18. Come on, Reason, I’m just busting your balls, you don’t have to be all defensive about going to a porn conference.

    1. (cough) cosmotarians (cough)

    2. really, what’s the fucking point? Every conference in las Vegas is porno conference to some extent. I went one time. NEVER AGAIN. Fuck porno.

  19. “Once a medium made mostly by men for men, porn has blossomed into an arena where female directors and producers can thrive, “feminist porn” is a thing (…)”.

    A) Personally, I’m glad that porn “made mostly by men” for men, did involve a whole lot of female “sex workers” (that doesn’t sound like fun), who fortunately got more attention from the camera than the men. Of course it’s unfair that all the famous porn directors and producers got so much attention, praise, and social acceptance. — Oh wait. Is this another instance where women move into a profession when it’s been made sufficiently acceptable and profitable by men? That’s open for debate.

    B) Feminist porn? That either must be porn for men, where feminists tell them where to look, how often, and for how long; or where the feminists with “false consciousness” go. Well, if the patriarchy does one thing, it is causing women to have false consciouness about sex. I prefer the patriarchy theorists who are consistent and don’t make an exception for sex because they (want to) like it.

    C) Social mores. I like porn. But while the rule of negative liberty applies, I’m not in favor of social mores regarding sex disappearing. (Define “repressive”.) And individuals should be careful to examine whether “anything goes” sex works for them. That especially goes for women who think they can have sex in an emotionally detached way just like men. There are downsides.

  20. I get the whole consent and freedom of choice part of being in porn, but has Reason ever covered the dark side of the industry? There are legit reasons to discuss this aspect of porn.

    1. Interracial? There’s plenty of that

    2. I think they’ve really overlooked the dark side of waiting tables as well.

    3. Nah. ’cause when you look at the “darkside” of an industry, you’re left with one of two conclusions. Either (A) it’s an acceptable cost, or (B) there should be some regulation to curb it.

      Seeing how regulation-phobic people ’round here are, there’s little incentive to cover any “darkside” at all.

      1. A philosophical take on safety/risk versus freedom would make sense. Well, an attempt. I’m not sure how many would accept catastrophic risk. One thing is clear, we’re almost exclusively dealing with probabilities, not with certainties.

  21. racial and sexual minorities are (if too slowly) starting to gain more visibility and get treated with more respect

    Does that mean we will be seeing still MORE black dick? I’ve heard that almost half the porn videos available are black dick.

  22. “It’s not just prurience or juvenile posturing or the much-alleged libertarian tendency toward libertinism.”
    I fucking hate the word prurience. It smacks of part of SCOTUS’ definition of obscenity “appeals to the prurient interest”. You mean, it causes sexual arousal? And hey, juvenile posturing is what makes alot of this stuff fun!

    And much-alleged? I would imagine that if you drew a Venn diagram representing the various political ideologies (modern leftism, modern American conservatism, libertarianism, etc.) and then overlapped areas of prudes vs. libertines, libertines would probably intersect with libertarianism more than any of the others. Although it does bring up an interesting question: Does a passion for liberty, tend to open one’s mind more to different sexual experiences? Or are natural libertines drawn to libertarianism to justify their appetites? NTTAWWT, I am a bit of a libertine myself.

    1. “libertines would probably intersect with libertarianism more than any of the others.”

      Well, there sure are a lot of libertines who want the government to support their lifestyle – “free” contraception, for example, which seems to poll well in certain circles.

      1. You are probably correct, that there are a number of Leftist libertines who want the govt to subsidize their behavior. But, I think increasingly, the prudish Feminist/snowflake crowd is taking over the Modern Left. I am not sure it has taken over the rank and file, but certainly all of the “leaders” of the Left are spouting the “positive consent” etc. line. I also think that many folks who are reflexively for “free” contraception aren’t even all that libertine. I think they are just conditioned to think that govt should pay for health care, contraception equals health care, therefore govt should pay for the pill.

      2. I’m a gold-star? gay man here. I’m pretty sure contraception, free or otherwise, does nothing to support my “lifestyle”.

        Based on various trial programs, however, it does decrease teen pregnancy, and thus teen mothers, abortions, and poverty. But that can’t possibly be why I approve of such programs. I mean, reducing abortion and poverty? Why would anyone want *that*?

        ________
        ?Meaning “never had sex with a woman”

        1. Yeah, here’s a gold star. If you want, pay and hand out gifts, or convince others to, or do some lifestyly stuff..

          P.S.: Is it yet necessary to signify “gold star gay” in LGB*ETC?

          1. “If you want, pay and hand out gifts, or convince others to, or do some lifestyly stuff..”
            So long as those “others” don’t include the government, eh?

            “Is it yet necessary to signify “gold star gay””
            Generally? Nope.
            When I’m making it clear that birth control does nothing to “support my lifestyle”? Yes.

            1. You can hand out gifts to whomever you want. Of course they are not generally obliged to accept them.

              That aside, “gold star” gay does indicate a hierarchy. Is that fine? And aren’t gays who tried heterosexual intercourse, and then reject it for the future, more dependable?

              1. Of course there’s a hierarchy. It’s all laid out in the LGBTQRS Agenda. You’ll see that Gold Star is right above Silverback, but below Otters. Puppies are close in the hierarchy, but they’re mostly in a different lane so it’s hard to equate them.

                1. You’re never going to write that down, E. Not enough illusion of agreement and egalitarianism, then. — By the way, is there agreement that homosexuality is “genetic” as opposed to “socially constructed”, while (psychological) sex is merely a “social construct”? Agreement on human nature? Which is what you are necessarily dealing with.

    2. Go with the second explanation. Everyone spends all of their time rationalizing their behavior about everything they do. Why would political affinity be any different?

      Me? I’m a wonky nerd who likes to dive (sky and scuba), never does drugs, believes in marriage and monogamy and scientific inquiry. And I don’t think anyone else is qualified to tell me what to do, nor do I feel qualified to tell anyone else what to do.

      Therefore: Libertarian.

      1. If you *didn’t* do scuba diving, you’d probably be a Fabian Socialist.

        I’m just kidding!

    3. Libertine libertarians are forced to be quiet about what they believe in order to keep the repressed prudes in the tent. And even with all the courtesy they are extended the prudes still whine about how no one will cater to their retrograde sensibilities. So “libertine” still remains an accusation that gets flung, as if life should be about something other than finding pleasure in whatever you want to find pleasure in as long as it harms no one else.

      1. Can you give some examples of libertarians going out of their way “to keep the repressed prudes in the tent”?

        1. Elizabeth spent an entire paragraph try to placate you and you’re still here bitching.

          1. A whole paragraph! Wow! Which one?

          2. But Eddie isn’t a libertarian so that doesn’t really count.

      2. I would tend to think that many of us may be more inclined to downplay the libertine side when we are dealing our more conservative brethren, rather than in a more straight up libertarian forum (like here, or at some Libertarian Party function). I still vote Team Red more often than not, and I still identify as a libertarian-leaning conservative (or a right-leaning libertarian whatever) so while I certainly don’t apologize for my views on sexuality (or ending the WODs or anything), it may not be the first thing I discuss with them. But here, with the commentariat I say “Let your freak flag fly!”

      3. It might go a little beyond the prurient/prude dynamic. Libertinism is, in many regards, inherently selfish (I don’t mean that pejoratively). Libertarians are constantly bombarded with the accusations of “you think nothing but of yourselves!” A shunning of libertinism in mixed company might be a subconscious defense to ridiculous stereotype of libertarianism.

        Now, can we get back to talking about other kinds of “ism?”

      4. …their retrograde sensibilities

        Yeah, they’re so judgmental!

    4. 1) Classical liberals score lower on disgust/purity/sanctity. So they are less easily offended by sex, and less often have the motivation to get a government to restrict others’ behavior.

      2) I would say “defend” instead of “justify”. Regardless that is bound to motivate.

  23. ENB, I am going to have so many questions for you. So, so many. Also, pass around my resume, would you? Thanks.

  24. Porn’s dirtiest secret: What everyone gets paid

    More extreme acts, as you might expect, command higher rates. The most extreme ? unsuitable for describing in polite conversation ? can go for $1,800 to $2,500.

    Emphasis added. Paging SugarFree ?.

    1. While 2 grand for a day’s work might sound like a lot, it isn’t all that much in the entertainment industry for a featured role in a short film or series. According to google it is about the same as a soap opera actor earns for an episode, which presumably involves a similar amount of work hours. And you don’t have to take it up the pooper.

      On the other hand, there’s probably about a thousand times more working actors in the porn industry than there are on the soaps. What are we down to now? Two or three left? I guess 2 grand an episode is too much for talent…

      1. And you don’t have to take it up the pooper.

        “Have to”? Aren’t they *begging* for that?

      2. But the Soap Star then doesn’t get to go on tour to the high end strip clubs.

        A lot of this is like music – albums get you recognized, but the money comes from touring.

      3. Two grand for a scene, not ‘a day’s work’. There’s a big difference.

    2. Makeup artist gets $500. What does the key grip make?

      1. That would depend on what he grips.

        1. Yes, that would be the obvious explanation of my not so subtle joke. 😉

          1. Sorry to joke-block you, dude.

            1. *Gives Notorious a noogie* get outta here ya bum.

    3. I would say the $2,500 is going to a named performer for a long fisting session that results in a rosebud. But only the first two or three times they do it. The Law of Diminishing Returns has a steep slope in porn; novelty and youth/beauty are the only real currencies at this point.

    4. What is also interesting, is that with Pornhub (and others) most of us can achieve “satisfaction” without spending a nickel (except for your cell or wi-fi bill). Frankly, I really don’t know how porn stays in business doing it like that. Do enough people join pay sites from seeing some on Pornhub, that it makes it worth it? And why the hell would anyone buy or rent DVDs from adult book stores anymore?
      I don’t think I have paid for any type of porn in years.

      1. Advertisement. “Damages” from illegal downloads. Plus they collect data, and are going to blackmail about 20% of the population, in a few years.

  25. Don’t care.

    1. What you say, it’s my life.

      1. Now I’ve got to turn on the radio to get that stupid song out of my head.

        1. I know it’s crazy, but it’s true.

        2. Remember Wang Chung? Revenge best served cold.

          1. Across the nation, around the world…

  26. Pffft. Like I need a reason to care about porn.

  27. “…porn has blossomed into an arena where female directors and producers can thrive, “feminist porn” is a thing, and racial and sexual minorities are (if too slowly) starting to gain more visibility and get treated with more respect.”

    Leftist social justice claptrap . I have no idea why Reason abases itself by employing you.

    1. The attempt to make classical liberalism (CL) and “social justice” work within one framework is rather interesting. That alone would be reason enough. Combining CL and feminism reveals things about both, and about psychology.

  28. “[…] and they deserve a workplace free of undue discrimination and harassment at the hands of either unscrupulous employers, customers, or the state.”
    Ok, “or the state” is typical libertarian/Libertarian boilerplate. But since when do libertarians/Libertarians care about discrimination/harassment from the rest? I thought tolerating discrimination/harassment was supposed to the hard part of being a libertarian/Libertarian?

    1. Good job picking this up. I’d like to know what “due” discrimination is supposed to be (limited to).

      1. Speaking of which, despite this porn avalanche, has she managed to gather her thoughts on NYC’s super anti-discrimination gender-truth-paradox philosophy?

        See https://reason.com/blog/2015/12…..law-primer

  29. I’m starting to like this Elizabeth Nolan Brown character….

  30. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  31. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  32. “feminist porn” is a thing

    Ah, good to know that from October 15, 1950 ? September 7, 2015 it was ‘not a thing’. I’m sure that because Tom Kelley is a *still* household name while the relatively little-known Norma Jeane Mortenson is proof positive that feminism didn’t exist prior to the 60s-era sexual revolution.

    Seriously, women move through porn in much the same way pro-athletes of either gender move through their respective fields. So, when do we finally say, “OK, we *really* aren’t oppressing/disfavoring anyone now.” or do we just plunge headlong until all porn is composed exclusively of men and exclusively produced by and (not) consumed by women?

    I have yet to see anything truly original come from feminist porn. At best the genre is dominated by content that either no one would otherwise consume or explicitly recognize as feminine/ist to begin with, or acts that *rather explicitly because of feminism* would be labeled as taboo or even criminal in other contexts.

    1. “I have yet to see anything truly original come from feminist porn.”
      I haven’t seen anything “truly original” come from any sort of porn since I was 15 and got a networked computer in my room with internet access (and a computer desk that meant someone could open my bedroom door and not see anything below mid-chest).

      You might be expecting a bit much from porn.

      1. No. The point is that if feminist porn is not different to regular porn, then feminism has a serious crisis of existence.

  33. It’s said that porn is often a leader in computer/web technology, or something to that effect. Anybody with the exact wording would be much appreciated. It occurs to me that porn might be leading the way towards a business model (or models) without copyrights, too. Lots of porn is obviously free on the internet nowadays but lots of people are still making money with porn, too. Understand how they make money in porn, and you might well understand how money can be made by non-porn content providers. Books, music, movies, etc.

    And I can’t believe that it’s that hard to find people willing to do the necessary research on this, but they have to follow up and report the results as well!

    1. Shared interest, plus a shared interest in silence. You may want to call it tyranny of the majority. The majority might as well start robbing banks. Soon it would not be considered robbing banks.

  34. Governance by religious/personal moral beliefs: We think the behaviors in question are immoral according to our religious/personal moral beliefs, therefore they should be illegal. There’s a difference between crime and sin where the sin in question does not violate the rights of others. Murder, rape, and robbery are both crimes and sins. Sex between consenting adults may, according to one’s religious/personal moral beliefs, be a sin, but it is not a secular crime. Sex between consenting adults, video recorded and sold to other consenting adults is also not a secular crime no matter how much the totalitarians voted into office want it to be. It may be a sin to them, but that’s a religious concept and had no place in our secular laws….but only if we truly want to uphold the concept of inalienable rights.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.