genderberg.com

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articl ... leID=11765

...

Do some of these young women who willingly participate in the making of such videos do so because they do not respect themselves enough not to? Maybe I was brought up in a world in which a girl’s idea of having fun is less thought provoking and racy.

But girls, and young women out there, if you want to take part in having fun the Girls Gone Wild way, think respect first.

For self respect all begins with you. You have to respect yourself first if you want others to respect you.

If participating in such activity for all the world to see makes you happy, so be it, but you do not need to do that in order to gain recognition.

There are millions of other ways to gain recognition and respect without flaunting it all at such a tender age for all to see. You do not need to allow yourselves to be exploited in what some persons might consider to be a rather degrading manner.

After another night of running into GGW ads the length of infomercials while channel surfing, I've had enough and now I'm searching for the contact info of all those whose asses I'd like to kick over it. While looking, I ran into this article. I have no idea who the American Chronicle is or anything about them except for this article, indicating that it's a conservative news group.

Anyway, the writer lays heavily on the girls who've gone wild without considering that in the last 150 years since he/she was a teen, things have changed. Kids nowadays think that "respect" means that people fear that you or your homies will shoot them. Girls are pressured into doing GGW, both by peers and by mobs of misogynist, entitled males. Uh...someone's buying GGW vids or it would have gone the way of the pet rock long ago.

If you want to, there it is. I'm on a mission to not be subjected to porn ads anymore...or to at least bitch about it.

I think it's time for debates on human trafficking, pornoggers and free speech to turn anew.

Being involved with human trafficking should be an automatic prison felony. This means the transport, sale or exchange of people directly or through indirect channels. Everyone here is in agreement on this. I've talked about getting intelligence agencies off the war on drugs and more involved with ICE/DHS, Interpol and other international groups' efforts who want to fully stop this male-centered epidemic. BTW, I was formerly known as ndw on this board.

Anyone with half a brain knows filming coitus or directly/indirectly engaging in pornography is not only being a chicken but it lets loose their identity and opens up their druthers to blackmail, extortion, etc. See my post at: http://www.outlandishjosh.com/wordpress/?p=1690 ( I posted under ''Without A Net'' )

I also believe we can all agree that prostitution is the same thing as pornography with similar or the same financial structures except the latter is done on film and that the johns aren't quite so anonymous.

What I've heard about GGW ( I've seen some of those late night clips myself too, yukyuk ) is it is short of risque but not pornographic. They show topless girls, girls kissing girls and sometimes naked girls. Is it tasteless? Yes. Pornographic? Not really.

I've taken a professional interest in studying certain online non-pornographic '' fetish sites ''. I go out of my way to assure that more than 75% of the sites I visit are neither hosted by known pornographic site hosting firms nor financially sanctioned by said firms.

I believe there is a growing artistic '' fetishist '' community who actively opposes pornographers. These are non-nude folks who dress in bikinis and leather and show off their dressed breasts, buttocks, feet and faces. Kind of like some of the things one sees when visiting http://www.deviantart.com/ Some may consider the fetish form of erotica as a healthy substitute to pornography. To that I say, sheeya; whatever.. Anyway, I think GGW falls under the fetishist category ( but they ain't artistic -- they're commercial ).

Perhaps the sub debate here is, are depictions and photographs of fetishism actually porn? I think in the digital sense that the fetish performers don't follow the same patterns of behavior as the pornoggers. True, some of the fetishists may be moonlighting as on-film tricks but that's narrowing it down to identity and what one does in terms of livelihood all the time. It is also true this '' cultural '' hybridization doesn't remove the element of cross-syndication. That's why I said before I was screening out the skank from the fetishism.

Once you debate the finer points of what is and isn't endangering the physical and mental welfare of a woman or man you cross into the realm of ideological debate. I believe in their hearts most men are anti-porn. I know most feminists are and I hope the items I addressed here are debated more in the future. It goes way past the '' I know it when I see it '' argument and into the ways & means, personal integrity, a nation's culture & history and biological needs concerning sex.

>July 23, 2006

>Back in the 80s when Cindy Lauper’s hit single, Girls Just Wanna Have Fun made it to the airwaves and stereo systems wherever it was liked, some girls’ idea of having fun was sort of naïve and not as xxx rated.

For such girls’ idea of fun could have comprised of events such as, hanging out at the mall, giggling and watching the boys go by (girl watching if you are a lesbian) catching up on the latest goings on with your friends’ love lives or bringing oneself up to date on the gossip about her peers, movie stars etc. Fast forward to the 21st century where some girls’ idea of fun has reached a new level.

What I've heard about GGW ( I've seen some of those late night clips myself too, yukyuk ) is it is short of risque but not pornographic. They show topless girls, girls kissing girls and sometimes naked girls. Is it tasteless? Yes. Pornographic? Not really.

It may have been only tasteless at one time but it's now slithered into the genre of porn, perhaps soft core rather than hard core, but it is porn.

They show topless girls, girls kissing girls and sometimes naked girls. Is it tasteless? Yes. Pornographic? Not really

"Girls kissing girls" isn't 'tasteless' ('taste' is an arbitrary construct used by snobs to designate so-called high culture from so-called low culture.)It's a key pornographic convention. Anyway, there's nothing 'tasteless' 'bout nudity.

How many of those 'girls' (really women) are young, slim and hairless? How many had their 'topless antics' (really men's antics) plastered on wankzines or the Internet? How many had their boyfriends make them strip for webcams? How many photos of them flashing their breasts for GGW were distributed across the globe via the Net and videos?

'Pornographic' suits me just fine.

I'm with Alyx. It's a porn indicator not tasteless in and of itself.

I've concluded my 2 month study.

I browsed sites with pictures of women wearing leather contraptions, stockings/hosery and showing their feet.

With the exception of deviantart.com's photography section and one other site I need not mention all of the sites I visited during this time period were additionally providers of softcore and hardcore porn -- not necessarily on the same Web site but it was common through my investigations to find the same server(s) plus domain name system in use that held fetish sites to directly neighbor pr0n sites on the Internet. I conclude from this that there is a lot of cross-syndication in the fetish world. Unfortunatey with this comes predatory content consolidation and exploitation of people.

. .are depictions and photographs of fetishism actually porn? I think in the digital
sense that the fetish performers don't follow the same patterns of behavior as
the pornoggers.

I have an eye for spotting skank in person and online. Call it my seventh sense. It's the same type of radar that can smell cops, Homeland (in)Security agents and suspicious white cars a mile away. In the long term I can honestly say without filing an affidavit that a lot of the women and girls on the fetish sites moonlighted as pornographic performers and tricks. It is highly likely that many of the women segway or gateway from contact shots of, say, their legs to porn. It is also highly likely that porn producers use these fetish sites to entice males to transition to porn use.

For me all of this is entirely different from an actress or Sports Illustrated/Maxim girl doing a legitimate film scene or photoshoot then having sex with the photographer ( or perhaps before the shoot to release tension ).

After we establish no person is being coerced into filming coitus or getting isolated or trapped economically ( trafficking ) the whole debate boils down to one's ideology. I am in the camp that believes one can have a creative, not-for-profit artistic side to erotica where pg, pg-13 and r-rated themes aside from film ratings need not apply. Every man and woman must be able to rule their destiny and have complete access to free markets, open pricing and transparency in the exchange of products and services. Personally I believe economist Milton Friedman was dead wrong. Legalized prostitution is both a disaster and a constant harbinger in events concerning blackmail, private-profit/public-profit mafiosi and illegal espionage.

Read the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

True, some of the fetishists may be moonlighting as on-film
tricks but that's narrowing it down to identity and what one does in terms of
livelihood all the time. It is also true this '' cultural '' hybridization
doesn't remove the element of cross-syndication. That's why I said before I was
screening out the skank from the fetishism.