TheAgitator.com
Porn and The Alyona Show
Monday, April 11th, 2011Okay, calm down all you Alyona Minkovsky fans. They were merely discussing porn. And my boss Matt Welch pretty much destroys the nattering anti-porn crusader in this clip. I don’t know what data she’s citing at the end about a 20 percent spike in teens acting out sexual aggression on other teens, or some such nonsense. Crimes against minors, youth violence, and rape are all down over the last 20 years. Sounds like another made-up study.
when Alyona said ‘fetishized’, I knew I was in love.
the blonde escaped without any serious damage to her beliefs- if Matt had 10 more minutes, there would’ve been carnage.
Blonde—to the bone
“There’s a reason that answer was vague and rambling” has to be one of the top ten responses to nonsense ever.
Hey, pissing on the First Amendment is a small price to pay to get your name on TV as being a crusader for morality and purity. The down side is pretty small since most people believe that the First Amendment only protects expression that isn’t offensive (you know, the kind that doesn’t need First Amendment protection).
I love how she just kept insisting on all the damage this porn was doing, and when confronted with evidence that she was wrong, she tried (pitifully) to dismiss it.
There is no reasoning with a prohibitionist, because prohibiting consenting adults from doing what they want with themselves and each other is an unreasonable premise.
@4:03 Matt slaps Cris Clapp Logan (an unfortunate middle name given the topic) around nicely. Well done. Thankfully, the Alyona also calls bullshit on Cris.
1. “Child molestors also have hardcore porn”. They also have white sugar, TV, and beer. The next time I see the US Government aggressively pursue the US Catholic Church and priests as aggressively as they’ve pursued Jose Canseco, Mark McGuire, Lance Armstrong (the best is yet to come on this one), and Barry Bonds I’ll know they’re serious about protecting kids. Fuck the government and the Catholic Church on this issue. They both hung kids out to dry.
2. “Vomit…pee…group sex…hardcore…beastiality.”
The first 4 are consensual! Beastiality doesn’t belong in that list as it is not consensual and I don’t know why she’d mention it in response to Matt’s statement. But it does show that Cris really wants to prosecute (put a gun in people’s faces and throw them in jail) things she thinks are icky. About 4 people in the US are into vomit…and that should be enough to protect it.
3. “This is not about a moral panic. This is about enforcing US law.” Cris decides to stop the discussion and rely on “the law is the law”. I’ll mention Jim Crow here.
4. “Deviant sexual acts are becoming normalized”. It has been said anal sex is what the blowjob was to the ’90s (or something like that). One person’s “deviant act” is another’s “sexual liberty”. Consent isn’t the issue with them. They don’t like what you’re doing and they KNOW they have the right to stop you…for the children.
Don’t forget this is all theater. Hatch and the Repubs want to hang on Obama that he supports raping kids and penguins or something.
Once again we’ll have Congress preaching about how terrible these acts are…and who wants to bet Congress is–on average–kinkier than most people? In conclusion, one more example that government ruins everything…even porn…which is pretty freakin’ hard to ruin.
PS:
@ Dave #4: Cris is backed by some major league Repub power. Being a foot soldier in that army has some pretty incredible upward mobility.
If there was a tax on misuse of the word “actually,” Ms. Logan would be a libertarian by now.
You know who else had orgasms? HITLER.
Boyd, you can’t make a blanket statement that all bestiality is non-consensual. Sometimes animals are taken against their will, sometimes the dog humps your leg against your will, and sometimes….
All during the clip I kept thinking about the obscene things I want to see Ms. Logan and Ms. Minkovsky do to one another. And me.
Our safe word would be: antidisestablishmentarianism
You know who blamed pornography for their violence against women? Ted Bundy. Seriously.
Somebody needs to ask these people if they agree that is what caused Bundy to commit multiple murders. If they say yes, reply that would make him not culpable and they must have executed a mentally ill man.
Thought it was pretty funny that the blonde was centered on the screen at the 2:00 mark when the guy on the video in the background was ‘getting a ride’.
Maybe I’m just a deviant but I kept hoping that Alyona and the blond were going to make out in the end. I have a thing for cardigans and f-me boots. Does that make the interview obscene?
I am always floored at how childish adults can behave when it comes to porn. You might as well substitute porn with cooties or fairy dust.
Ms. Mirkovski seems to be in possession of a fully functional bullshit detector, and the inclination to use it. Are the authorities aware of this? I thought they made sure no one like that got into television journalism…
Damn it! damn it! damn it!
The least she coulda done was demonstrate so we would know what this “porn” she’s talking about is.
I liked the part when she mentioned certain things being “not part of a normal sexual life.” That’s the real key — underneath all the bullshit and phony stats, what it’s really about is being icked out and so forcing people to adhere to some fictional standard. These acts are not inherently good or bad — they’re morally neutral. As long as consent is in place, eating someone else’s vomit has as much potential to be a beautiful experience as straight missionary with the lights off. Whatever gets you through the night.
Classic anti-sex bloviation. If you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with bullshit.
As Matt Welch pointed out, it is an incontrovertible fact that the explosion of porn (in terms of universal access and limitless variety to appeal to virtually any taste) has coincided with an unprecedented decrease in sexual crimes of every description. That doesn’t prove that porn caused the decrease, but it destroys any suggestion that porn causes this sort of crime.
Anti-porn activists have been trying to prove it is harmful since at least the Nixon Commission in the 1970s, through the twin attacks from the right (Meese Commission) and left (Andrea Dworkin & Catharine McKinnon) in the 1980s, to the “internet jurisdiction” cases of the 1990s, and now the latest political kabuki from Hatch.
I’m famiiar with the research Ms. Logan references. To say that she distorts the findings is a large understatement. The classic study had its subjects view two kinds of porn “vanilla” (e.g., smiling couples happily fucking) and “violent” (e.g., slapping, simulated rape, etc.). The study then noted how the subjects responded to various stimuli. For a short time immediately after viewing the violent porn, the subjects responded more aggressively.
First, the observed effect was mild and short-lasting.
Second, the most reasonable conclusion is that it is the aggression, and not the sexuality, that led to the temporary increase in aggression. On an admittedly unscientific, anecdotal level, show a bunch of 8 year old boys Power Rangers videos, and they will spend the next half hour hitting and kicking each other.
Third, it ignores the overwhelmingly most common response to self-selected pornography (regardless of variety) in a natural, non-experimental setting: masturbation, followed a trip to the fridge, followed by a nice long piss, followed by sleep.
Not to mention that the countries where hard core porn was most accessible before the internet (Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands) had much lower rates of sexual crimes than countries where it was less available (especially the U.S.).
The only “porn” that should be “illegal” is photographic representations of illegal acts, on the grounds that it is evidence of a crime that should have been turned over to the police. It is NEVER safe to allow the State a category of speech that isn’t protected, because the State will cram into that category any speech it finds annoying. Feminists should NEVER forget that anti-pornography laws were notoriously used by various bluenoses to prevent reliable birth control information from getting into the hands of the poor.
But there are always swine who want to say “It’s icky! Ban it!”
On a slight tangent; The Supreme Court has long recognized that sending non-verbal sexual signals is protected speech (stripping). How about we admit, therefore, that a woman who dresses in some extreme ways, while NOT “inviting rape”, has in a sense initiated a conversation about her sexual availability? I mean, a young lady wearing a t-shirt that says “Grab my Heinie” (a Heineken brand shirt) shouldn’t be able to scream “sexual harassment” if some guy tries to pick her up, neh? And no, I’m not making that up. I saw it. The poor slob got thrown out of the amusement park.
Chris Clapp Logan:
… She works closely with EIE President Donna Rice Hughes (former homewrecker and presidential aspirations killer!)
… Prior to joining EIE, Mrs. Logan worked in the Senate Republican Conference for former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
It’s interesting to note the conservative photo of Ms. Clapp-Logan on the EIE(io!) website:
http://www.enough.org/inside.php?tag=640UAE1GT0
compared to the Ho’d Up attire she was sporting on the Alyona show: Bottled Blond (all one color) teased and sprayed, Porn-red lipstick, Tight black dress/red sweater (back in high school, these were “whore” colors!) and high-heeled black boots – everything about her outfit screams “come fuck me” and NOT “missionary only please.”
The only thing missing was a whip.
Hey Everyone:
Re: Cris Clapp Logan
Go to:
http://www.internetsafety101.org/101_video_clips.htm
Scroll down to and play:
Profile of an Internet Predator & Alicia’s Story:
and you will be delighted to find Agitator favorite: Mary Beth Buchanan.
O Joy!
C.S.P. -
I have a hard time with photographic representations being illegal, for two reasons:
Number one is that in the digital age, photographs are infinitely copyable and have unlimited distribution. Someone in possession of a photo on their computer has very few ways of knowing when, where, and how the photo was taken.
Number two is that the courts refuse to have reasonable definitions on digital depictions. People have been prosecuted in many countries for having images of underage cartoon characters in pornographic material. Many more have been prosecuted for possessing legal porn, but where the apparent age of the actor (to the prosecutor) warranted pressing charges.
Prosecutors like to maintain that there is a profit incentive for the producers of child porn, snuff films, and rape videos, but the truth is that almost none of this stuff is sold to anybody. Because of the digital age its pretty much freely available to anyone willing to go look for it. The people who produce and distribute this material do so for their own interests outside of money, and no matter how many times the photo is downloaded the only crime committed was by the person who produced the material in the first place.
I love Comments #15 & #!9!!!!!! MInkovsky does indeed have a “fully functional b-shit detector…” and I’m not joking!!! That woman runs on a full tank ‘o coffee to do her job, EVERYDAY, exposing the phonies!!! Good job, Alyona!!!!! You are a stand-out woman in the world of television journalism~~~Thanks~~~