You are here: Home » Adult Webmaster News » New MiM eBlast Betrays Its Ignorance of the Porn...
Select year   and month 
 
October 29, 2014

New MiM eBlast Betrays Its Ignorance of the Porn It's Fighting

JESUSLAND—Well, it's the middle of White Ribbon Against Pornography (WRAP) Week, and sponsor Morality in Media (MiM) probably thinks nobody's out there refuting their bullshit ideas about the legal adult entertainment industry—or that no one's paying attention if someone does. Otherwise, they couldn't have published one of the six points their latest e-blast makes about "Child Pornography." Unlike yesterday's mailer, today's actually makes some valid points: • "Many of those convicted of child pornography report that they started out with adult pornography and then deviated down to child stimulation." Yeah, we'll give them that one, because although no one (including MiM and its cronies) has any actual data on how many child porn fans start out looking at adult porn, the simple fact is that adult porn is much more available than child porn, so anyone searching for "child porn" will come across adult porn first. But the phrase "deviated down" suggests that child porn fans were once fans of adult porn before they "deviated," when all the actual science of the past half-century or so has concluded that there are fans of adults having sex and fans of children having sex, and rarely do the twain meet; there's virtually no crossover. • "A majority of child pornography offenders claim that the Internet was where they FIRST found child abuse images and that it was INITIALLY BY ACCIDENT when viewing adult pornography." [Emphasis in original] Again, MiM in fact has no idea whether a "majority of child pornography offenders" claim anything, since it isn't privy to their police interrogations and hasn't attended anywhere near the "majority" of child porn trials or, in cases of guilty pleas, defendants' allocutions. That said, it's hardly surprising that someone looking for child porn would find it by accident, because it's not as if child pornographers and kiddie porn fans do a lot of advertising of their wares—and some illegal/pirate tube sites aren't exactly screening their advertisers for the possibility that one or more of them is offering child porn for the "discerning viewer." So clicking on a link on a pirate site could easily lead one to the illegal underage material... BUT (and it's a big BUT), the vast majority of porn fans, upon discovering that a site they've visited is child porn, will click away immediately and just as quickly clear their browser history, since several courts of appeal have ruled that merely having a child porn site in one's browser history is evidence of the crime of child porn use. • "While hardcore adult pornography does not depict actual children, it does 'include hardcore depictions of sex with persons who are made to look like children and with barely legal teens.'" Again, MiM's ignorance shows through, because if there's one thing the adult industry has been careful (if not manically obsessive) about over the past decade or so, it's making sure that none of the women (or men) depicted in its content look like they're underage. Why? Because they know that the best way to attract attention from the FBI, who then would want to riffle through the company's completely legal adult pornography is for one of those feds to see a video featuring a woman (and these are women, not "girls") who looks like she might be under 18. But let's be very clear about one point: Even though content creators often use the word "teen" in their advertising, they're referring to eighteen- and nineteen-year-olds, who are legally eligible to appear therein—a fact that even MiM seems to recognize in its next point: • "It is STILL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY even if the victim looks older or is only 17 years old." [Emphasis in original] Despite the less-than-clear wording—in the above, the word "child" should be substituted for "victim"—they're absolutely correct: Shooting sexually explicit material with someone under the age of 18 is child porn, no matter how old they may look. That's why no legitimate adult entertainment company would knowing do so—and over the past 30 years, there have been less than 10 performers who have managed, by using fake or illegally-obtained government IDs, to sneak into legitimate companies' adult content—and all of those have been discovered by the producers themselves, with no help from the feds and certainly no help from pro-censorship groups like MiM. Which, oddly enough, leads into MiM's next point: • "Many people in the porn industry (producers and distributors) do not check the age of the “performers” (victims) and make it easy for them to lie about their age." Of all the lies Morality in Media is likely to tell this week, this one is likely the biggest. In fact, EVERY producer of legal adult content for DVD or Web has someone on the production staff who's been designated to look at EVERY performer's GOVERNMENT-ISSUED ID and to make sure that ID says they're over 18. Now, as early as Traci Lords, underage would-be performers have tried to sneak into the industry using fake IDs and illegally-obtained IDs—Traci's was a fake driver's license, though some have used fake passports, or the adult ID of a person who looks very much like the underage girl. However, as soon as such deceptions have been discovered, all product in which the underage person performed has been recalled and burned or consigned to a landfill. Why? Because it's CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, and the adult entertainment industry doesn't make CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. And lastly: • "Perpetrators and pimps often use adult pornography to instruct prostituted children, as well as act out what they view in adult pornography with the children." That may well be the case, and in the Modern Age where airports can be locked down and flights cancelled because some asshole thought it would be funny to create a WiFi hotspot named "Al-Quida Free Terror Nettwork," it's not surprising that MiM would imply that adult porngraphy, created by adults for adults, should be censored because pimps and child molesters use it as examples for the kids they want to molest or pimp out. But that's a law enforcement problem, not a pornography problem—but of course, if MiM admitted that, they'd probably have a lot fewer donations, and might even have to pay back some of their defrauded contributors. Yeah, fat chance—but we can dream, can't we?

 
home | register | log in | add URL | add premium URL | forums | news | advertising | contact | sitemap
copyright © 1998 - 2009 Adult Webmasters Association. All rights reserved.