How about a thumbs up?!

We recently submitted a couple of proposals on topics we'd like to present at the next SXSW festival--and we'd love your thumbs-up support on either or both if you're so inclined.

Both proposals have been included in the SXSW 2010 PanelPicker, the rather sadomasochistic tool that the event uses to help determine which topics will ultimately be included... your "yes" votes and comments can definitely make a difference!

#1 - The Porn Police Are STILL at the Door
Not just for pornographers, the notion for this panel grew out of our work curating CineKink, as we noticed that entries submitted by filmmakers from the adult sphere typically included notice that federal record-keeping requirements for sexually explicit material had been properly met, while those coming from the independent film world did not. (If you’re thinking “2257, huh?” that could probably be you!) Making matters worse, the regulations have recently been expanded to cover not just actual or documentary depictions of sex, but simulated situations—ie fiction—as well.

Yikes, you say? Pick this panel!

#2 - Was It Something I Said? TOS And Content
Meanwhile, this panel was inspired by the frustrations we've experienced over the years trying to position and promote a sex-related endeavor on the internet--from finding a web host and sending email blasts, to processing ticket sales and donations, to creating an identity in social marketing and getting our videos placed on popular sites. Seemingly the old adage--“I’ll know it when I see it”--flourishes online, where murky definitions of what content is and is not allowed abound. One gatekeeper’s “inappropriate” is another’s “adult” is another’s “offensive, obscene and/or pornographic.” How are we affected as users and creators--and is there any recourse?

Wanna find out? Pick this panel!

Sugasm #131

The best of this week’s blogs by the bloggers who blog them. Highlighting the top 3 posts as chosen by Sugasm participants. Want in Sugasm #132? Submit a link to your best post of the week using this form. Participants, repost the link list within a week and you’re all set.

This Week’s Picks
Kink
“A bill outlawing the possession of “extreme pornography” is set to become law next week.”

M is for Mine
“You comment on my wetness.”

The Story Behind the Waxing
“I tend to go to people that I trust really know what they are doing when it comes to my pussy.”

Mr. Sugasm Himself
Keeley Hazell Regrets

Editor’s Choice
The sadistic impulse

More Sugasm Join the Sugasm
See also: Fleshbot’s Sex Blog Roundup each Tuesday and Friday.
(Sugasm participants should re-post all the links above within a week. The following links may be excluded as long as you include all the above links.)

Thoughts on Sex and Relationships
Being the Receiver…
Desperate boy.
A Parity of Madams and Whores
Trapped
You say trannyboifag, I say trannyboifag

Sex Work
At Least My Vibrators Don’t Judge Me
Sex Worker Solidarity: Gracie

Erotic Writing and Experiences
Blowjob in the showers
Clarity
Drunk and horny
Flash #1 - Greedy
Two Minutes and 52 Seconds
Unicorn Sighting

Sex & Politics
Um. Pornography is in focus?

NSFW Pics, Videos & Audio
Another Gratuitous Picture Post
Back with HNT!
Half-Nekkid at the Beach
Lilaceous
Mirror Mirror
Monica - Drop On Jacuzzy
Pornsaint Kylie Ireland
Strange Sex Fantasies
Teen bobs on Ron Jeremy’s cock
Video: Long Distance Lovemaking

Sex News, Reviews & Interviews
Catalina loves Melvin Moten, Jr. (An interview with the fetish photographer behind Erocrush.com)
If You Were a Sex Toy, What Would You Be?
My IMsL 2008 Trip – Part 4
The Sexiest Form You Might Ever Fill Out
Shall We Play A Game?

BDSM & Fetish
Cerebral Trainee Subject: Susan
A day of torment (pt 2)
Dining Table Punishment Spanking
Dionysian Tales
Harmony Rose Is Dominated On The Training Of O
Other World Kingdom visit - Part 4
Submissive Little Darling
The Submissive Male Construct and Nice Guys
Weighty Matters

Sex Advice
A Little Lesson on Figging…
Sex Dates for Parents
Vaginal Fisting: What It Is and How to Do It

Um. Pornography is in focus?

A twist on an old joke has cropped up around CineKink, surfacing more frequently around festival submission time:

"What's the difference between art and pornography?"

"Pornography arrives with its 2257 compliance properly identified."

Bah dump bump.

Anyway...an expansion on some of the topics we discussed during our recent SXSW panel, The Porn Police: Know the Rules, an article by attorney Alan Levy has just been published in The Yale Law Journal.

First tracing the history of federal 2257 record-keeping regulations and its recent judicial back-and-forths, the article then goes into the implications that they present to all filmmakers, including those working with actual and with simulated depictions of sexual conduct.

Mainstream filmmakers should be especially concerned with the language of the most recent published § 2257 regulations, in which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrote, “Section 2257A requires that producers of visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct maintain records documenting that performers in those depictions not be minors.” Does this mean that a noted film such as Taxi Driver, in which a twelve-year-old Jodi Foster portrays a thirteen-year-old prostitute, is unlawful? What about the more recent controversial film Hounddog, which premiered at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival and portrayed twelve-year-old Dakota Fanning as a rape victim? Even a film nominated for Best Picture at the 2008 Academy Awards may be affected by § 2257A. Atonement has one scene of explicit simulated sexual conduct involving actress Juno Temple, who was seventeen years of age at the time of filming.

While filmmakers working in the adult arena are, for the most part, all too aware of the regulations, their existence seems to escape notice of documentarians who occasionally stumble into the realm of actual sexual conduct. (And again, we ask, what the hell does that mean?) And with the expansions presented by 2257A, a huge new class of fiction filmmakers is folded into the mix.

For all, it is critical to know both the rules and the risks - and to work together in protesting their chilling presence.

To read more of Alan's article: How “Swingers” Might Save Hollywood from a Federal Pornography Statute

Delayed gratification: Sex & SxSWing!

Going from CineKink to SXSW to Dark Odyssey has been a bit of a gauntlet - a gauntlet of pleasure, to be sure, but now that we're at the end of it, our body, sensing a respite, seems to be flirting heavily with what is generally known as the common cold. But, dammit, not before we get out this too-long-delayed SXSW recap, even through a Nyquil haze...

You can take a listen to the podcast here, but our panel, The Porn Police: Know The Rules, went off well and we managed to cram a ridiculous amount of somewhat tedious 2257 detail into our alloted hour. In addition toyours truly, the speakers included Violet Blue, deftly illustrating how the regulations play out in the real world and the problems they present for artists on both sides of the camera, attorney Alan Levy, keeping us on track with which part of the law stipulates what - and what that might actually mean in the day-to-day - and director Joe Swanberg seeming to grow increasingly consternated with the realization of how the rules could well apply to his own, er, body of work. (Lascivious display of nudity, anyone?!)

Bottom line - for all media makers working with depictions of sexual conduct, both actual and simulated (what's that?), it represents another area of calculated risk - one that will warrant further discussion in the months ahead. While the danger is probably slim for most, it's still critical to know the rules rather than blithely plowing ahead and hoping for the best.

And in other sex matters at SXSW:

Violet Blue also tackled and spurred further online discussion of a tricky subject with her lively panel, Sexual Privacy Online.

Cory Silverberg facilitated a discussion on Sexual Ethics, Interactivity and Virtual Worlds

Twanna a. Hines took on Adult Conversations: Sex, Intimacy & Online Relationships.

Elizabeth Wood and Lux Alptraum led the core conversation Pink Ghetto Blasters: Destigmatizing Sex, then Lux gave us a 20x2 rumination on the differences between porn and erotica:



Film offerings we managed to catch included Bi The Way, a look at the sexual inclinations of the so-called "whatever generation," Obscene, a documentary profile of the colorful Grove Press publisher, Barney Rosset, and the superb Sex Positive, exploring the life of activist Richard Berkowitz and his critical role in the now taken-for-granted concept of safe sex.

And, not quite sex, but about as close as you can get armed only with a Handywipe, we enjoyed reprised BBQ revelations at Iron Works and - well worth the trek out to Driftwood - Salt Lick!

Once again, we'd like to thank SXSW for their sex-positive inclusivity - along with Matt Dentler, Hugh Forrest and their respective crews for making it all happen.

The Porn Police @ SXSW !

As part of SXSW, CineKink’s co-founder and director, Lisa Vandever, will moderate a panel about the various regulations on sexually explicit content and how they may apply to all types of media producers.

THE PORN POLICE: KNOW THE RULES
Saturday, March 8 - 5-6 pm

It may seem like sex is everywhere in film, television and online, but sexual portrayals are surprisingly restricted - and getting more so everyday. Already draconian federal regulations on the depiction of sexually explicit conduct were recently expanded and signed into law by President Bush, and now apply to an even wider class of media makers. Not just pornographers, but anyone creating and working with explicit imagery of even simulated sexual conduct - bloggers, webmasters, narrative filmmakers, documentarians - needs to know the rules and the risks.
This session will touch upon:
* Overview of 18 U.S.C. 2257 & 2257A record-keeping requirements for actual and simulated sexually explicit material
* New wrinkles introduced by online access/distribution of materials
* Resources for additional information and advocacy support

Panelists:
Violet Blue
Tony Comstock
Alan Levy, Esq.
Joe Swanberg

If you're around, come on by!

Finally, some 2257 sanity!

The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals injected a good dollop of sanity into the ongoing legal wrangling over the 2257 federal record-keeping statutes, yesterday declaring them overly broad and unconstitutional.

Responding to government contentions that the regulations are necessary in fighting child pornography and that the laws place restrictions on conduct rather than speech, the court responded that these arguments are not persuasive. As reported in XBIZ, Judge Cornelia G. Kennedy, writing for the majority, points out that child pornography may more likely be considered conduct because the underlying conduct is illegal. She then gives us this money quote:

“Adult sexual conduct is not illegal and it is in fact constitutionally protected … The regulation of visual depictions of adult sexual activity is not based on its intrinsic relation to illegal conduct. It is, therefore, a regulation of speech, because both the photograph and the taking of a photograph ‘bear … [a] necessary relationship to the freedom to speak, write, print or distribute information or opinion.’”

A perusal of the court's 27-page decision reveals more thoughtful consideration on the sweeping reach of the statutes, their chilling effects on free expression and the right to anonymity.

With greater analysis and updated FAQs still to come from the Free Speech Coalition, industry experts caution that the ruling applies to the 6th Circuit district only - and there's the likelihood of continued government appeals - and one has to wonder about those adult sexual activities not always considered to be legal conduct. Still, reason for some celebration indeed!

Action alert! Feds move to restrict sexual content. (Yep. Even more than now!)

Apparently, we've had our head in the sand about the pending deadline to submit comments on proposed federal regulations effecting the production and distribution of sexually explicit content. That pending deadline is now very pending, as in Monday, September 10th.

In a nutshell, obstensibly intended to prevent the use of underage performers in adult entertainment, 2257 regulations have been on the books since 1988 and in effect since 1995. To comply with the regulations, producers are required to complete a records keeping compliance form for every model/performer who appears in any work, ie photo, film, video, including depictions of "actual sexually explicit conduct." This form asks for all kinds of personal information, including the performer's legal name, date of birth, any and all stage, webhandles(?!?) or pseudonyms used, and it asks for personal ID numbers, along with an attached photocopy of the performer's ID. These records are to be kept on file by the producer, cross-referenced so that they are easily retrievable by performer name and/or title of the work, and readily available for inspection by the attorney general or "his or her designees."

Recent amendments to 2257, which were proposed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush on July 27, 2006, expand these regulations to:

* Cover a new class of so-called "secondary producers," meaning anyone...
"(ii) digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufacturing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution, that contains a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or ‘‘(iii) inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content, of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct."

Sound like anyone you know? Probably closest to home, this will apply to websites, many of which you possibly visit on a daily basis, including, as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force recently pointed out, adult social networking sites such as Gay.com, AdultFriendFinder, Bondage.com and SwingLifestyles. Anyone who is a "secondary producer" will now need to have copies of the 2257 record for each and every model/performer depicted and keep those readily available for inspection, as above. That's alot of forms.

* Cover simulated sexual conduct in addition to actual sexual conduct. While there is apparently some provision for a safe harbor that might protect mainstream (aka non-adult) entertainment producers from the regulations, that provision is yet to be defined. And whether the largesse will extend behind the coffers of big-business Hollywood to embrace independent producers will also need to be seen. And aside from all that, what precisely equates simulated sex?

* Lump in the "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" as a new, fifth type of regulated depiction. You can probably guess where we're going with this, but in whose eyes is something determined to be lascivious? In case you're wondering, the regulated depictions already covered are "sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse" (In case you're wondering, as we certainly were, what the hell is "sadistic or masochistic abuse?" - and for the switches among us, shouldn't it be and/or - it's another one of those terms that could mean nearly anything. For instance, a recent Google search turned up a city code with this definition: "...flagellation or torture by or upon a person clad in undergarments, in a revealing costume, a mask or bizarre costume, or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one so clothed.)

Overall, a burdensome series of hoops that will do little to nothing to protect children and serve only to chill the open expression of sexuality. (We're certainly feeling chilled!)

So, bottom line?
If you're a producer, secondary producer and/or consumer of any depictions of sexually explicit conduct, actual or simulated, produced for the adult entertainment world or not - and/or you're a supporter of full sexual expression for all - submit your comments protesting these regulations by Monday, September 10th.

Address your statements to: Admin.ceos@usdoj.gov .

IMPORTANT : Be sure to include the following in your email subject line: (Section 2257 Docket No. CRM 104).

For some samples of what you might write:

From the Gay Lesbian Task Force a letter focused largely on the rules' effect on adult-social networking sites

From the Free Speech Coalition, some guidelines on submitting comments that relate to the rules' effect on the adult industry, including economic impact; look also for the 2257 FAQ talking points available for download at the bottom of the page.

From the Pro-Porn Activism Blog, letters - main body and comments - from a pro-porn, free speech perspective

Whichever works best for you, just make sure it's in by next Monday, September 10th!


(Oh, yeah. Please note that we are not an attorney and none of the above should be construed as anything resembling legal advice.)

Pick me, pick me!

It's perhaps not the same level of trepidation that used to descend as the teams were divvied up for sixth-grade slaughter-ball, but we had a wonderful time at SXSW last year and we'd love to ensure our return in 2008. To that end, we've suggested a panel discussion for the festival, inclusion of which will be partially determined by the results of the SXSW Panel Picker, which is live and online now! (Pick me, pick me!)

Inspired by the cheerful oblivion to current and pending restrictions on sexual content demonstrated by most non-porn media makers, we've proposed:

The Porn Police: Know the Rules
Already draconian regulations on depictions of sexually explicit conduct were recently revised and now apply to an even wider class of media makers. Not just pornographers, but anyone creating and working with explicit imagery, bloggers, webmasters, narrative filmmakers, documentarians; need to know the rules and the risks.

Last year we noted SXSW's sex-positive inclusivity and the possibilities for this one again look promising. While you're in the picker giving us your vote, also give a nod to:

Violet Blue -
Sexual Privacy Online

Deb Levine -
Online Sex Advice

Cory Silverberg -
The Future of Sex in Interactive Narrative and When No Means 01001: Sexual Ethics and Interactivity

Elizabeth Wood -
Pink Ghetto Blasters: Destigmatizing Sex via Online Community Building

But don't forget to pick me, pick me!

What's 2257 divided by 13?

And, once again, does it matter if you're a primary or a secondary producer?

We imagine we could claim some numerologically-significant superstition that prevents us from spending Friday the 13th dissecting the latest decision from the DoJ on 2257 regulations, which landed in our metaphorical laps yesterday. But to be honest, we'd really rather just declare the rest of the day a "summer Friday" and make sure we've got all our provisions laid up for tomorrow's Bi Bare Beach Bash at Sandy Hook's naked nude clothing-optional beach.

Fortunately, several others out there are already doing the heavy lifting. We'll just pass these links along, then print out the pages and stick them in our bag with the SPF30. Nothing like a little, light beach reading!

Proposed 2257 Regulation Changes Contain Compromises, Complications - Darklady for YNOT

New Proposed 2257 Regs Published - XBIZ

Atty. J.D. Obenberger Comments on Proposed 2257 Changes - AVN

Meet you back here next week with some coherent bullet points?

A little 2257 clarity?

Over at A Savage Place, there's a good bullet-point overview of last week's ruling in Free Speech Coalition v. Gonzalez, the organization's challenge of the revised 2257 regulations. (Hat tip Viviane's Sex Carnival)

In many ways a set-back for the FSC, the ruling does provide several points of clarity, giving definitions for several terms that have had many producers (and even so-called secondary producers - whatever those are) scratching their heads in wonder. Perhaps most immediately significant:

While producers do have to keep copies of the IDs of performers on file, they're allowed to blot out the day and month of the performer's birthdate and the performer's SSN and home address on those copies. That's a huge deal -- otherwise, think of the potential for identity theft and stalking if and when those records are released to "secondary producers", including retail outlets -- and I think it'll make the new 2257 regs a lot more palatable to people.

Meanwhile, a bit more eye-crossingly detailed, a memorandum on the ruling prepared by AVN's legal correspondent carefully emphasizes the most pertinent elements of the ruling and explains the implications of the case's rather convoluted "procedural posture." Bottom line?

...The court allowed FSC until April 16th to show why the law, as amended, is unconstitutional; and until the end of April for the government to reply. Therefore, any time after May 1, 2007, the court may rule that secondary producers are required to have copies of the records, have them indexed, and be subject to inspections.

Can we just go back to talking about our favorite kinky movies now?

COPA smackdown!

Last week a federal judge struck down the Child Online Protection Act, ruling that it was overly broad and unconstitutional. As reported in the New York Times: “Despite my personal regret at having to set aside yet another attempt to protect our children from harmful material,” Judge Reed wrote, he was blocking the law out of concern that “perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.”

The decision is the result of a legal challenge, filed by the ACLU and several other plaintiffs, which had been underway since shortly after COPA became law in 1998. Under the provisions of COPA , websites would face severe penalties for failing to restrict access to "materials harmful to minors," with such a broad definition as to go beyond the usual (already suspect) standards of obscenity to possibly include mere nudity.

(Alright, we know the old adage about laws and sausages, but we just had to look. Here's an actual COPA passage: "...depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and...")

With the growth of web-based video sites and online distribution, the ruling is a definite positive, not just for our friends in the porn adult entertainment industry, but for every filmmaker looking to push even the slightest provocative edge - "Oh, my. Is that a post-pubescent female breast?!?" - in their work.

But before you start getting too jiggy on the internet, keep in mind that, despite seeming beliefs to the contrary, a particularly onerous obscenity provision of the Communications Decency Act still remains on the books, along with the lingering possibility of receiving an unexpected and most unwelcome greeting from a western Pennsylvia-based prosecutor's office.

And, of course, there's all that 2257 rigamoral to be sorted out.

But still, a smackdown is a smackdown. Prost!

SxSWing

There's nothing like a 25-hour trip home through frigid conditions to blur recent memories of a week spent knocking about spring-like Texas, especially when those recollections might have already been made hazy by a week of tequila and BBQ.

After a few days of sleep, however, it's all starting to come back to us. We arrived in Austin to learn that our panel, Sex Scenes Stay Hard, was being touted as a "must-do" in the local media. It took us several days to tackle our resultant stage fright, but by the time we finally faced a room packed with attendees eagerly anticipating tidbits of uproariously naughty wisdom, our nerves had been reduced to a minor frog lodged at the back of our throat.

We were definitely comforted that the panel also featured other actual experts on the topic of shooting sex scenes - directors Bryan Poyser, Joe Swanberg and John Cameron Mitchell (who coyly avoided any acknowledgement of completely coopting our intended career trajectory), along with producer Lisa Thrasher of POWER UP. You can see a few video excerpts here, but generally the discussion touched upon the frequent conflict between sex and narrative, the importance of making cast comfortable and ensuring a connection between them, and the hypocrisy of a society that seemingly doesn't question the depiction of violence, no matter how extreme, yet goes into a tizzy fit over the presence of a mere bare breast. As time flew by, the topics of ratings, obscenity laws and 2257 requirements were probably given shorter shrift than they deserve, but we're just happy we somehow managed to work the word "cunninlingus" into the conversation, since now that we know how to pronounce it, we just can't seem to say it often enough.

Other excitements at SXSW included meeting up with several in the flesh representatives from the CineKinkster blogroll. We probably spent more time in Austin with the lovely, cupcake-wielding Rachel Kramer Bussel than we've ever pulled off in NYC, after she appeared on one of the (strangely?) most controversial panels of the interactive conference, Do You Blog on the First Date? We had the pleasure of finally meeting both Violet Blue and Cory Silverberg, who were speaking on Sex and Computational Technology. (Teledildonics? Now there's another great word!) And we encountered the delightful Seska Lee, in town for Pay Up! Should Publishers Choose the Porn Path?, whose Seska 4 Lovers was previously unknown to us, but whom we eventually recognized from an episode of HBO's porn-related something-or-whichever.

And movies? There were marathon days of great screenings, including a few on the CineKink scouting roster: Zoo, a beautifully shot if perhaps overly tasteful retelling of one man's death from having sex with a horse, and Pretty in the Face, a tender narrative about porn, sex toys and opening up to one's own sexuality. But for our money, the kinkiest of them all by far was Helvetica, a documentary look at the twisted world of compulsive typography fetishists.

Many thanks to the ever-gracious Matt Dentler - how does he manage to be in so many places at the same time? - and Jarod Neece for the wonderful time and for SXSW's sex-positive inclusivity. We're already looking forward to coming back again next year. (Please?!?)