Tag Archives: adult film industry

X Matters

The U.S. Supreme Court commenced its latest term October 2, and after the previous two years of drama and shocking decisions, the American populace is wondering what’s next.  Among the upcoming decisions:

Lindke v. Freed – A case in which the Court will decide whether a public official’s social media activity can constitute state action only if the official used the account to perform a governmental duty or under the authority of his or her office.

Murray v. UBS Securities LLC – A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief to succeed on a retaliation claim.

Rudisill v. McDonough – A case in which the Court will decide whether a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service is entitled to receive all of the education benefits at once from programs associated with both periods of service.

United States v. Rahimi – A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment.  (Both domestic violence experts and gun rights supporters are closely watching this particular case.)

Vidal v. Elster – A case in which the Court will decide whether the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.

The 2022 Dobbs decision upended the long-standing belief the High Court always moves the nation forward.  It wasn’t akin to the 1954 Brown decision, which reversed the 1896 Plessy ruling.  It was such a regressive move that even legal scholars remain stunned.  Afterwards, Justice Clarence Thomas – the longest-serving member of the Court and a conservative darling – declared the Dobbs decision opened the possibility for reversals of other cases, such as Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage.  Curiously he said nothing of the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case that legalized interracial marriage.  (Thomas is currently married to a White chick.)

As upsetting as the Dobbs decision was, I know the case that will galvanize Americans; that is, the decision that – if reversed – will incite a revolution.  It is the one case that will drive Americans into the voting booth more than abortion, education, guns, queers or voting itself – Miller v. California, the 1972 decision that technically legalized pornography.  (Also see United States v. Reidel.) Yes, among all the sentient issues plaguing our modern society, denying people the right to view sexual activity will culminate in a revolution that could rival the collapse of the Roman Empire.  In the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan – perhaps still angry about the Miller decision – launched a war on pornography.  His then-Attorney General, Edwin Meese, commissioned associates to investigate the adult film industry under the guise of protecting children, which is indeed a noble effort.  But in reality, Reagan’s self-righteous demeanor drove his efforts to limit free speech; to stifle those who dared to disagree with him.  We saw much of the same two decades ago as critics of President George W. Bush were assailed.  Both extremist conservatives and liberals just don’t like when people have something negative to say about their lifestyles.  The same groups don’t have any problem, though, dictating what’s appropriate for others.  Conservatives, in particular, don’t like anything sexual.  It sends them into epileptic fits.

Regardless I can assure everyone that any U.S. Supreme Court assault on pornography will be taken seriously.  It has a lot to do with finances.  As of 2022, the adult film industry in the U.S. profited about $97 billion.  And that kind of money buys a certain amount of power.

The Reagan Administration failed to shut down pornography in the U.S.  Despite the AIDS epidemic, the adult film industry forged ahead in the 1980s and continued growing.  And I can assure even the most ardent of conservatives can’t stop it.  Then again, many of those same conservatives often view pornographic material – they just won’t admit it.  They really can’t because it would undermine their own limited credibility.

No matter what happens with the High Court, I doubt few other matters will resonate with voters as the X factor.  There are few things more obscene to me than war and unfettered censorship.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays

Bothered

As all my followers well know, The Chief is always asking the tough questions about our world.  For example, how do sexual harassment policies work in adult film production companies?  I realize that’s a hard one to think about, but just try.  You never know what you’ll come up with!

I will now refrain from posting anything for the rest of the weekend.

7 Comments

Filed under Wolf Tales

Bella-Rash

The “actress” formerly known as Belladonna in all her pornographic glory.

When I earned my English degree from Ellis University – then part of the New York Institute of Technology – one issue frequently discussed was the veracity of sources.  In the old days (e.g. before Google), people conducting research on essays and theses had to drag themselves to a notable library and scour catalog files for appropriate resource materials.  Along with physically going to said library, carting armloads of books and binders could be considered a bodybuilding class.

But, at Ellis, one source NOT considered valid is Wikipedia.  It’s one of those ubiquitous Internet sites – kind of like online ads for pillows, vibrating toothbrushes and butt paste.  A number of my fellow writers and bloggers have referenced Wikipedia.  However, in vicariously perusing some Wikipedia entries, I’ve noticed the site itself will note – in vibrant red or blue lettering – that some items need further clarification or verification.  Supposedly Wikipedia is a generic, quick-pick type of site; a place – much like a cafeteria – where people can choose whatever they want to consume.  Therefore, it’s not considered a valid archive of information.

A while back I came across the name of an adult film model who went by the name Belladonna.  Her real name is Michelle Sinclair, and she entered the world of porn in 2000 at the age of 19.  I actually remember seeing her on an ABC News special hosted by Diane Sawyer several years ago.  I found Belladonna interesting because she chose to dye her natural blonde hair black.  In an industry where fair-haired vixens seem to rule, this was somewhat (forgive me) refreshing.

But, in looking her up on – where else? – the Internet, I came across her Wikipedia entry and zeroed in on a peculiar statement: ‘She thought she had contracted herpes in 2002…it was later discovered that it was a skin rash…’.

For some ungodly (read: perverted) reason, I found that unbelievably hysterical!  The flippant nature of that specific verbiage – how it’s worded – jump-started my laugh meter.  If anything, it proved what higher education has already declared: you can’t trust Wikipedia that much.

Now place that “skin rash” statement in the context of other situations:

Is that mole really melanoma?

Naw, it’s just a skin rash.

Did a spider bite you?!

Calm down! It’s just a skin rash.

You still have all those bruises from the pool party?

No, they’re just skin rashes.

That bee sting must have hurt like hell!

Oh no!  It’s just a skin rash.

Are you pregnant?

God no, mother!  I just have a skin rash.

That looks like such an awful sunburn.

Calm down, boss!  It’s just a skin rash.

Please feel free to devise your own predicaments that include a “skin rash”.

1 Comment

Filed under Curiosities