http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jun/25/internet-pornography-companies-xxx-domain
But many pornography companies are unhappy with the idea of a dedicated space online because they expect that as soon as .xxx is implemented, conservative members of the US Congress will lobby to make any sex-related website re-register there and remove itself from other domains such as .com or .org.
That would mean that sex sites could be more easily filtered out from web searches, and lower their revenues. Free speech advocates also worry that sites about topics seen by US conservatives as controversial, such as homosexuality, might also be forced to use the .xxx suffix.
Good, if it makes internet porn less profitable, bad if it’s misused to censor, for example, sex education websites.
Also a nice bit of white-washing from the company that stands to make a lot of money from this new domain:
Lawley, who insists that child pornography will be banned in the domain space, thought the new address could easily attract at least 500,000 sites making it after “.mobi” the second biggest top-level domain name with a specific sponsor registrar.
The .mobi TLD, set up in 2005, was sponsored by a range of companies, including Google and Nokia, to create sites for browsing with mobile phones.
But where the .mobi TLD had commercial sponsors, the .xxx domain is notable for only having ICM Registry, which stands to benefit from every domain name it sells. Lawley says he expects to make $30m (£20m) a year in revenue by selling each .xxx site for $60, and pledges to donate $10 from each sale to child protection initiatives.
Anti-Porn Feminists 
Wonder if we can buy up a bunch of .xxx websites and then put anti-pornography and anti-trafficking pages up on them.
Anybody know if that would fly?
Would be a huge step in the right direction if internet porn were to be restricted but that will certainly not be the case.
The issue clearly is one of profit and seeking ways of ensuring even greater profits are obtained, because restricting pornography will not happen in the near future. Too many men consider it their innate right to have 24/7 access to pornography because they all need their ‘daily fixes’.
Oh big deal! So Lawley will donate $10 from each sale obtained to child protection initiatives. We are not fooled because protecting children from male sexual exploitation is not a separate issue from mainstream pornography. What is the real issue is men’s demand which is insatiable due to widespread availability of pornography. And no, child pornography is not separate from mainstream pornography, it is all part of the same deliberate pornographers’ dehumanisation of women and girls and turning them all into men’s disposable sexualised commodities.
Male consumers swiftly become bored with the same old porn – hence the need for ever more ‘edgy’ and sadistic porn showing males committing sadistic sexual torture on younger and younger females.
Now what would be a news item would be if Lawley were to withdraw from promoting this latest porn making venture. But I’m not holding my breath – Lawley stands to earn £20m a year so a $10 donation a time isn’t going to dent his bank balance.
One way to make a dent in the industry, albeit more slowly than I would like, is to create a profitable company that would donate to getting women out of porn. At least help some those women who are coerced by their financial and social situations. Provide them with counseling, a place to live, give them hope that they don’t have to continue to live their lives that way. And, of course, perhaps steer some women clear BEFORE they enter the industry. It’s an idea I have had for a while, though I’m not sure one would begin such an enterprise.
I meant to say, I’m not sure HOW one would begin such an enterprise…
The Pink Cross foundation is a faith based organisation that does outreach to those in the sex industry, and was set up by Shelley Lubben, a former porn actress and prostitute.
I agree with Faye but I think it’s important sometimes to help the men as well. By “the men” I don’t mean the abusers in the industry but the men who are in say…the gay porn where I’ve seen “bottoming” men treated as badly as the women are treated in heterosexual porn. I don’t actually know how the numbers of men trapped in the porn industry (being abused) compare to the numbers for women but I do think that it’s important not to forget any victims. Also, a man who has been abused in porn could also be a pretty powerful advocate. Men want to believe that they can’t be abused or hurt and that they are invulnerable but that simply isn’t the case in my experience. It’s social conditioning and the patriarchy that enforces men being empowered but in reality not all men are empowered and I think if people could see that violence and destruction CAN happen to anyone, they’d stop brushing it off as a “women’s issue” that doesn’t affect them (not that it being a women’s issue makes it an acceptable thing to brush off by any means).
I’m pretty sure there is an ex-porn star who does work like that, trying to help anyone who needs it to get out of the industry. She mostly gets requests from women but I think she is open to helping men as well.
You’re probably thinking of Shelley Lubben, of the Pink Cross Foundation
I agree that a ex-male pornstar or someone involved with the industry or who was witnesses abuse, exploitation and corruption would be an effective advocate.
What bothers me is that, people don’t want to hear from the actresses themselves, many say that they’ve been horribly traumatized and exploited and will be shamed, bullied and marginalized by people who claim to be ‘sex positive’ if they really were they’d be outraged at the industry distorting what sex positivity is (supposed) to be about. Safe, sane, healthy and of course it goes without saying consensual attitudes towards sexuality and actually practicing these sexual ethics.
Unfortunately sex positivity has been misused and abused by those who cannot (or will not-they are called willfully ignorant for a reason) understand the nuanced concepts or factors that have influences on the people involved or the porn industry itself. They fail to realise that the porn industry is an industry (captian obvious here to save the day) and aren’t sexual revolution crusaders just like the people who market you energy drinks don’t care about extreme sports or whatever angle they are trying to market on any given product.
The are trying to make money from a product and to produce that product real people must be used. This would not be a problem if the people hired were truly there of their free will.
Porn itself isn’t inherently evil, humans have a natural tendency towards curiosity and this extends to sex. However humans also have a tendency corrupt. These images should not come at the expense of the people depicted nor should they perpetuate harmful attitudes (misogyny and homophobia for example) but the majority of it is it is the very lucky, priviliged that are able to choose to do sex work as a legitimate choice. They truly are not being exploited, they have other options so they can freely choose to leave the industry and have a fully functioning union to stand for their rights (l this does not exist make me wonder why that is)
This is where people get confused the minority does not represent the majority and the pornstars assuring you that they love their jobs (quite often while knowing saying anything other than that will cost them their livelyhoods) does not represent every individual porn performer who is being coerced, brutalized, humiliated, manipulated, tricked or trafficked…that is not consent not in a true sense just because a performers seems to be enjoying it does not make it so.
When a porn performer can’t say no to a sex act they are not comfortable doing or is dangerous (not wearing condoms being pentrated by two penises in the same orifice at the same time…..I mean seriously that is beyond what the human body is designed for) without repercussions… ‘do it or you’ll never work in this business again’ or ‘if you don’t you won’t get your paycheck’….that is not consent.
When they where not told of in advance what exactly would entail in a scene (eg. A threesome turns out twenty or more men having sex with one woman)…..that is not consent.
When the performers cannot go on tries to stop the scene and the cameras and other performers keep going regardless of protest…..that is not consent despite the fact is was a minute ago.
If the peformer is suffering from a mental illness or is mentally unstable, while it is difficult for employers to determine….it is not consent (the contract under which they perform can be voided under these circumstances and rightly so)
I’ve barely covered all I wanted to but they who make porn using these kind of tactics have no basic human empathy they exploit anyone they can to cater to sick misogynist a.k.a they’re customers. I don’t think this post will change much because as society stands (male) orgasms overrule everything.