joeldurston

Posts Tagged ‘Porn’

Once you go black, you don’t go back

In reportage on March 30, 2014 at 3:55 PM

It’s not often the porn industry is the good guy in the news, but it has proved just so in a weird, lurid tale to emerge from Germany.

Former porn star Ina Groll, 28, turned away from the profession, declaring “I am tired of exposing my body. From now on I will expose a policy of hate.”

But most would say she is espousing a policy of hate, as she started campaigning for the far-right German political party, the National Democratic Party. (Why is it that it’s always the least democratic organisations which have ‘democratic’ or ‘people’s’ in their name?)

The party – which describes itself as Germany’s “only significant patriotic force” but which has only pockets of support – has been involved in various race controversies and huge financial trouble, much like the BNP, and has even been subject to two attempts by the German state to ban it.

The controversies include campaigning against the importance of holocaust commemoration in Germany, this poster (“we’re cleaning up”), and issuing a leaflet protesting the selection of a black player in Germany’s national football team, with the slogan: “White. Not just the color of a team shirt! For a true national team!”

Ms Groll, who went by the stage name ‘Kitty Blair’, joined Facebook and Twitter last November and expressed support for the party, with various messages railing against both government and “other” people, supposedly leeching off the rest of Germany.

Her profile picture has a banner reading “resistance, we will not be stopped”, other posts call for radical change and another states: “Enough! Criminals, foreigners and social parasites out of our country and return to their home!” (All translated).

As well as various posts on social media in support of the party, she canvassed for them on the street, aiming to attract male voters and penning the slogan “nationalism can be sexy too”.

…But, the NDP obviously believes, only if that sex is between white people. Because, after realising that Groll not only sold her body for money but – dur, dur, durrrr! – once had sex with a black man on camera, in Kitty Discovers Sperm, a Facebook group was created calling for her to be banned.

According to the Daily Mail, one member posted: “Those who sell their body for money and disgrace their race have no place in our party.”

Senior NPD officials agreed that they would cut all ties with Groll.

But Ms Groll’s troubles worsened after she found that the porn industry, disgusted with the revelations of her ugly politics, would not welcome her back with open arms (and throbbing members).

John Thompson, German porn industry spokesman and head of porn company GGG, said the decision to ban her was unanimous.

“In the porn film industry, we welcome participants with all skin colours, and all nationalities, but we don’t welcome Nazis. If we had known about her political activities, we would have sent her home straight away,” he said.

And fellow pornster Axel Scaffrath said: “The popular view is that she needs to be locked up, no one needs someone like her with her perverted view of the world.”

So well done, porn, saving the world from the scourge of neo-nazism one crazy pornstar at a time…

Originally published on Planet Ivy

Advertisements

Cameron’s porn laws counter-productive, think-tank claims

In Satire on July 24, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Men could actually be driven to more disturbing sexual images following David Cameron’s clampdown on internet pornography, a leading think-tank has claimed.

 

The Prime Minister’s measure of compelling internet service providers to make pornography opt-in is designed to limit the effects of the extremes of pornography.

But the Institute of Thinking and Researching Stuff has claimed it could actually increase sexual extremism, as people develop out-of-the-ordinary sexual predilections in searching for alternatives to censored conventional pornography.

 

 

The Institute’s Dave Wheeler said: “Remember those times where you go on some natures-y holiday or where your internet goes down for a week or so, and you’re forced to… improvise for your pleasure, let’s say – this is what these new porn laws will be like for many people.

 

 

“And it won’t just be the standard knocking one off to the lingerie section of the Argos catalogue either. Our research shows that people will graduate onto cookery shows, property shows, even newsreaders – hoping they don’t cut to images of Syria or something half-way through.

 

 

“No part of normal adult life will be left untouched – literally.

 

 

I’m telling you, society needs ‘hot horny milfs getting anally annihilated’. They’re a great safety valve for society’.

 

 

Bloke A agreed, and defended pornography on unusual grounds – feminism. (He deigned to give his name, partly due to embarrassment, partly thinking being a man was sufficient qualification to speak on the subject).

He said: “All these feminists want us to look at women not just as sex objects but for their talent and intelligence and stuff, right?

 

 

“But us men think about sex every three seconds, isn’t it? So how is it possible to look at women in a nice, non-sexual way without porn?!

 

 

“If we can’t actually see Busty Kendras as naughty young doctors, we’re going to start visualising all doctors – and teachers, and scientists, and high-powered executives – like that. And all the time – not just most of the time, like now.

 

 

“We can’t help it. It’s evolution…I think.

 

 

“Would feminists want that situation?! I don’t think so…”

Keep the state out of our love lives

In Opinion on February 26, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Onanists beware! The Icelandic government is trying to push through legislation that will make porn illegal – and in doing so, I imagine, create an awful dilemma for that great bastion of morality, the Daily Mail (the Mary Whitehouse in it disapproving of the porn, but its strident anti-nanny state stance scornful of the government inference). As the Observer reports, a nationwide consultation has found broad support for the measure from lawyers and police operating in the area of sexual violence and health and education professionals, according to the country’s interior minister Ögmundur Jónasson.

She also said: “We are a progressive liberal society when it comes to nudity, to sexual relations, so our approach is not anti-sex but anti-violence. This is about children and gender equality, not about limiting free speech.” To be sure, this is a well-meaning stance, but not an altogether consistent one. The stated motives behind are admirable, but, contrary to Jónasson’s claims, it is undeniably also restricting freedom (granted, not necessarily freedom of speech – not much of that in porn – but it’s a distinction without a difference). It’s the classic problem for liberalism – how far is one tolerant of ‘intolerance’. Nick Cohen summed up an equivalent problem – that of the problem of Bangladeshi integration into British society – brilliantly when he said liberal multiculturalism “contains the seeds of its own negation. It can either be liberal or multicultural but it can’t be both.” It seems the Western world faces a similarly paradoxical choice over porn – either ‘progressive’ through ‘illiberal’ means (censorship) or ‘anti-progressive’ through ‘liberal’ means (freedom of expression).

It’s a strange problem because in many similar cases of freedom of expression the cause is unarguably noble – not necessarily the case when the freedom fighters are, essentially, fighting for their right to jack off with ease. It’s certainly a significant step, not least for a country which prides itself on its liberal sensitivities. But those in favour of censorship – for, despite some claims, that’s what it is – do have some strong arguments on their side, including evidence suggesting correlations between porn and porn addiction and rises in violence and gender inequality. And the move does seem to have wide support in Iceland. But the measures do somewhat suggest that porn is some outside malevolent force, imparting evil on unwitting citizens. This is, of course, rubbish. People make a free choice to watch porn, and it can actually support healthy sexual relationships, by cordoning off more extreme aspects of sex into the realms of (sort of) unreality, just like violence in computer games. And the internet didn’t invent porn – think of all the stories of curious pre-teens raiding their dad’s cupboards and finding stashes in the woods. So, chances are, just like pirated movies and illegal sport streaming, those who want to look at horny MILFs that much will always find a way, such is the labyrinth nature of the internet.

What’s far more disturbing – if unlikely to be implemented – is the Observer‘s accompanyingeditorial, which advocates the teaching of relationships in schools. It argues “it is travesty that the mechanics of sex are a compulsory part of the school curriculum, while an understanding of relationships, a vital part of emotional and physical wellbeing, is not”. Superficially at least, it’s well-intended. But when examined it just dissolves into a heap of left-wing nanny-state rubbish, which should only serve to make us grateful that the state generally stays the hell away from our private lives – something that should be expected but looks positively praiseworthy compared to the authoritarian nature of many governments and religions (often one and the same thing of course).

The truth is relationships and sex are (literally) f***ing minefields. Any attempt for the state to intrude further into non-criminal in this would inevitably draw widespread criticism from those of all political persuasions. Just look at how Michael Gove’s proposed changes to the history curriculum are being praised by the right and condemned by the left. Personally, it’s to the great credit of UK education that it gets attacked by both the right and the left, but – having previously been a teacher (albeit a substandard trainee) – having to negotiate various political pitfalls just add to an already onerous workload.

So, any kind of ‘relationship education’ would either be somewhat radical and incur the wrath of parents, protective and angry (quite reasonably too), over the state telling their kids how to live their lives; or, more probably, it would be meaningless, cover-all-bases mush. For instance, what would teachers be supposed to say about the practices of arranged marriages and stay-at-home women, both prevalent in many Asian communities? It also puts teachers in very tricky water with personal relationships with pupils (if individual kids even give a damn what their teachers think, that is).

The reason kids are taught about the mechanics of sex and not relationships is that the former is governed by universal fact; the latter is most certainly not. What works for one, will definitively not for another. Much better, surely, for people to learn about this in the outside world, from experience, rather than textbooks or intentionally sterile words from teachers.