“The images feature hardcore sex, fetishists, erect penises, the unhoused, the seemingly dead, freaks, the mentally ill, exhibitionists, masochists, sex workers, psychos, criminals, mobsters, a hooded figure removing a string of anal beads from his anus, and other types.” Read the rest of my latest Reverse Cowgirl newsletter HERE and then subscribe by hitting the button at the bottom of the newsletter.
Buy My Book | About | Hire Me | Blog | Forbes | Twitter | Instagram | LinkedIn | Email
In my latest newsletter, I reveal what happened when I set out to post an X-rated comic I created several years ago online: “My, My Obscene Comic.”
Well, maybe I’ll publish the comic in my newsletter, I thought. But then I started to wonder if doing so would get me banned from Substack. “We don’t allow porn or sexually exploitative content on Substack,” read their Content Guidlines, although “We do allow depictions of nudity for artistic, journalistic, or related purposes, as well as erotic literature.” So, I wasn’t sure.
Read the rest here and hit the button at the bottom to subscribe.
I’m a writer and consultant | Follow Me on Twitter | Follow me on Instagram | Email
Recently, the New York Times published the word "fuck." Here, the paper's public editor, Margaret Sullivan, explains why.
"Some readers have questioned the use of vulgarity in the series, including two instances of 'the f-word' in Thursday’s installment, the most notable of which is in a quotation from Dasani’s mother as she addresses her directly. It’s highly unusual for The Times.
The associate managing editor for standards, Philip B. Corbett, explained:
'We had a very thorough discussion of the use of the vulgarities in that passage, which are certainly not the norm for us. The writer and editors avoided language like that in other places. But they made a strong argument that the full quotations were important in this very crucial scene. In the end, we decided that for readers, more would be lost than gained if we tried to write around those passages here. And we concluded that using that language in this one spot — but not repeatedly scattered throughout the articles — would not be likely to distract or offend many readers. Our basic guidelines about avoiding vulgarities and obscenities haven’t changed, but we all recognize that there are cases where an exception is justified.'"
The quotes in question:
- "'Shut the fuck up,' she says. 'You know, that’s one thing I don’t like about you — your negativity. You always talkin’ about the problem. You got a solution?'"
"She think she some-fucking-body."
[NYT / Related: "Satan Is Offended"]
Photographer Clayton Cubitt explains why he's self-censoring:
"But honestly, there’s very little incentive for an artist to publish even modestly sexual visual work online. This is specially true when an artist also does work that requires patronage from often-skittish and culturally conservative corporations. Sexual images become extremely popular with rebloggers, and begin to crowd out more mainstream images, leading to an inaccurate survey of an artist’s oeuvre. While it might be superficially satisfying to have many thousand reblogs on a sexual/nude image, these many thousand reblogs are not worth even a single tiny poorly-paid ad campaign, which they might cost by scaring clients away when those clients do Google Image searches."
[Clayton Cubitt]
The Accused: Asawin Suebsaeng for Mother Jones
The Problem: This well-respected publication and its DC reporter are going to have to do better if they want to improve their online sex game.
The Story: "The Evan Rachel Wood Oral Sex Scene the MPAA Doesn't Want You to See."
The Money Shot: A paragraph from the "Charlie Countryman" script describing a cunnilingus sex scene starring Evan Rachel Wood and Shia LaBeouf that was shot but cut from the final version so the movie would receive an R rating instead of NC-17 rating, an incident Wood bitched about on Twitter by claiming the MPAA had "censor[ed] a woman's sexuality once again."
The Fail: The title of the article promised sex, but clickers found no sex, just words, which are not sex.
The Grade: D-
The Takeaway: When it comes to digital content, don't promise to fuck and not put out.
Porn gossip and news blogger Mike South posted an interesting email from a reader about how the porn industry works in Japan. Apparently, when it comes to porn, the Japanese are doing it better than the American pornographers, who are floundering.
"You definitely hit the nail on the head in terms of the amount they release, it truly is staggering. When I did place an order with them and was given the spreadsheet to choose from it was unreal. They put out hundreds of titles a month, and I’m not talking about comps and recycled material, and the same girls all the time, it is all new content, new and different girls, and a wide variety of genres. More importantly, it is all quality because that is the model that Japanese corporations follow. If you need more of an example take a look at the auto industry. Toyota, Honda, and the other Japanese manufacturers dominate because of their quality, innovation, and new ideas. The American manufacturers simply can’t keep up and I think that template can be removed from the auto industry and placed over the adult industry resulting in a perfect fit. Lucky for the adult industry in America, they don’t currently have to compete with Japanese studios, otherwise I think it would be disastrous for the mainstay studios here. You are already seeing a little bit of this happening on the toy/novelty side with companies like Tenga."
There's also some interesting information on how Japanese porn stars are treated differently and the Yakuza's involvement in today's Japanese adult industry.
[Mike South]
