Connect with us

Porn, Equality, And Journalism Just Don’t Mix

Published

on

Last Friday I resigned from The Bilerico Project, as regular readers of this blog know, in response to its publishing, “Hot Mormon missionary boys masturbating.”

To be clear, my resignation was not a protest, not an indictment, just a simple goodbye. A hopefully graceful, albeit specific exit.

As I explained in, “Why I’m Hanging Up My Bilerico Hat For Good,”

“My writing and my activism is my work. My work is to help the LGBTQ community achieve full equality, both under the law and in the hearts and minds of our neighbors, family-members, friends, co-workers, and society in general. And so I view Bilerico and my own blog as my place of work. And, after twenty-five years of working in corporate America, I don’t believe pornography has a place in the workplace.

“I’ve had this conversation, and others, with Bil. I understand his point. And most importantly, Bilerico is his home, and his business. Bilerico is an amazing institution, one that has taught me more than I expected, and one that has contributed a great deal to the LGBTQ community. I know Bil and all the Bilerico contributors will continue to do that fine work, to help open doors for our community, and help move the national conversation forward.”

“I do not see my work and pornography as compatible or even being able to share the same home. And I do not think that that type of content here helps us in our battle to win the hearts and minds of those who might choose to help us.”

And that, as they say, was supposed to be that.

I had asked Bilerico founder Bil Browning to publish my piece on why I was resigning. I wanted to resign and have it be clear that it was a personal choice I was making, not a choice I was asking Bil or his readers to make. All I was saying was that I didn’t want my work published amid pornography, or among content that was there merely to titillate or arouse.

Had “Hot Mormon missionary boys masturbating,” been framed as an examination, why that aspect of queer culture was interesting to some, had a bearing on LGBTQ culture, or served any other intellectual purpose, rather than just, as Bil wrote, “I bring you pictures of hot Mormon missionary boys masturbating. They’re from the porn site Mormonboyz.com, but I’ve deliberately used ones where you can only see their cocks through their magical Mormon underwear…” I would have probably been fine with it. Not thrilled, but fine.

For the first time ever, Bil refused to publish my piece. In his response to my resignation letter, he wrote, “I’m all in favor of making decisions that benefit ourselves and allows us to stand up for our ideals. You did that,” and promised he would pen his own response to the subject to “get the discussion started.”

Last night, Bil published, “Porn vs Prude: Bilerico is sex positive,” in which he wrote, “if there’s one thing I’ll never apologize for, it’s that Bilerico Project is sex positive.”

Making It Personal

I am honestly saddened that Bil chose to make this issue personal, thinly veiling attacks on me under the guise of Bilerico being “sex positive,” (the insinuation being, I am not,) not having “internalized homophobia,” (the insinuation being, I do,) nor being a prude (the insinuation being, I am,) rather than offering a debate on the issue of pornography as content.

He easily could have said, “Contributor David Badash resigned after we published this piece. What do you think? Is this content appropriate for what we want the site to be?” And that, as they say, could have been that.

(If Bilerico were so “sex positive,” it would have equal amounts of “sex positive” content for all different tastes. I do not believe it does.)

Bil chose to take the discussion in an unfortunate and entirely unnecessary direction. Rather than ask his readers what they thought about porn as content, as I did mine, he wrote, “I wouldn’t have it any other way.”

(In 2008, Bil was a bit more open to conversation. But not any more.)

What Do You Think?

I did take the time to ask my readers, on this blog via a poll, and on Twitter. The overwhelming response I received was that pornography on news and opinion sites is just not what you want.

As of this writing, here’s what you had to say:

67% were solidly against it, only 27% were comfortable with it.

But rather than look at the big picture, Bil chose to try to “analyze” a few points of my piece, leaving his readers out of the full discussion.  What Bil is doing is unfortunate, and his readers, as well as the larger LGBTQ community, deserve a better, more honest and open dialogue, especially from a site that claims to be all about honest and open dialogue.

In these pages and his, in my resignation letter, and in communications with others, I have supported Bil and his work. It’s disappointing that he chose to take such a narrow track, but, as I wrote, it’s Bil’s home and place of work, and he can run Bilerico any way he chooses.

Had Bil published my piece, a real discussion on the pros and cons of publishing pornography as content might have been held. Instead, Bil chose to be disingenuous, claiming, “No Internalized Homophobia: Bilerico Is Sex Positive,” writing, “it’s our genitals and what we do with them that sets us apart in most straight/cis people’s minds,” but neglecting to remind his readers that in “Hot Mormon missionary boys masturbating.” he had written, “you can’t be a proper Bilerico unless you’re both political and perverted.”

So, which one is it? “Sex positive” or “perverted?”

I think calling your writers and readers “perverted” speaks far greater to issues of internalized homophobia rather than, “I do not see my work and pornography as compatible or even being able to share the same home” with pornography.

Bil also writes, “I think that David’s premise depends on what your definition of “porn” is.”

Well, porn is porn. If it’s NSFW, it’s porn, or close enough. Like Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” what you call it isn’t what’s important. it is what it is. Why not be honest about it?

Matt Algren, an LGBTQ blogger who writes Asterisk, weighed in in the comments section of Bil’s piece.

I’m glad that you at least acknowledge that you do posts like that to up your hit count and therefore probably your ad revenue. “Sex sells”, though, has never been the sounding call of a respectable news/opinion organization. Using that motto as a defense signals to me that you put your income over your journalistic integrity, and I think that’s unfortunate.

I suppose the most frustrating part of your post here is its dishonesty. When you talk about being “sex positive” and proclaim that you won’t “shun” a segment of the community, you’re implying that someone has suggested you should be “sex negative” and that you should shun some LGBT people.

The problem is that no one has said those things. No one. You’re just being dishonest so you can cover yourself in glory. Why not just say “Yep, sometimes we publish naughty pics from skeezy amateur porn sites of guys in y-fronts, so don’t come here from work” and let that be the end of it? Why did you have to try to insert some false moral battle of which you can be the self-styled champion?

And to make matters worse, when you declare that you don’t have “internalized homophobia” and set this up as “porn vs prude”, you’re implying that the person you’re responding to (in this case, David Badash) does suffer from internalized homophobia and is a prude. That, mon frere, is what they call unprofessional, or in less polite society, “fucked up”.

Of the piece that initiated my resignation, Bil writes,

“Even the post about masturbating Mormon missionaries didn’t show any exposed genitalia – although you could see the shadow of one guy’s cock through his undies and if you blow up one of the other pictures you can see the outline of that guy’s balls through his knickers. The post is marked NSFW with the disclaimer: “I’ve deliberately used ones where you can only see their cocks through their magical Mormon underwear. They’re still NSFW, but if you need more there are tons more graphic preview pictures at the site.

So what do these posts all have in common if the moniker of “porn” isn’t sticking? They’re about sex – and gay sex specifically.”

That’s not a disclaimer, it’s an invitation. Again, why not be honest about it?

(And perhaps someone can tell me what Prince William’s Penis, at one point the #1 post on Bilerico, and one I mentioned as an example of what I felt was inappropriate, has to do with “gay sex specifically?”)

Another LGBTQ blogger wrote me, asking for anonymity, but stating,

“The idea that this is about sex-negativity is simply a strawman.

“The question, to me, is does Bilerico want to be Queerty, or do they want to be a serious forum for LGBT news and analysis?  It’s difficult to be both.

“When I look for real analysis in the Netroots, where do I go?  Digby, Steve Benen, Ezra Klein, and others.  I think we can agree that it would be weird if all of a sudden Ezra decided to post NSFW shit below the fold.  It doesn’t mean Ezra is “sex-negative.”  That’s just not what Ezra does.

“In the LGBT world, Pam Spaulding doesn’t post stuff like that either.  Towleroad links to fun, naughty stuff sometimes, but Andy doesn’t present himself as an analyst, but more as a collector of things lots of LGBT people (and straight people too!) might find interesting.  So because he casts such a wide net it’s appropriate.  The problem is that Bilerico seems to want to have it both ways, to be a place where “serious commentary” can co-exist with Mormon porn, and it’s not “sex-negative” to say that that format doesn’t work.  If Bilerico were large enough to be an LGBT equivalent of FireDogLake, that would work, but they’re not.”

Bilerico is a unique enterprise. It’s not for everyone, as it wasn’t for me. That’s fine. I chose to try to leave honorably and respectfully. It’s unfortunate, as I wrote to Bil after he published, “Porn vs Prude: Bilerico is sex positive,” that he “chose not to display the same level of respect for me, or my work, or, for that matter, [his] readers” that I had offered him.

I was honored that Michael R. Triplett, a board member of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, wrote in, “Porn, Skin, and Profits: The LGBT Media Dilemma,”

“Badash has taken a principled stand about where he wants his paid and unpaid work to appear. I’d also agree that “porn,” skin-ads and “boys in underwear” posts undermine the overall credibility in terms of news and analysis. OTOH, can bloggers and LGBT media survive without them?”

And that’s the point. The point is that pornography, fighting for equality, and serious, intellectual news and analysis journalism just don’t mix.

Be Who You Are. Just Be Honest About It.

As the anonymous blogger above wrote, Pam Spaulding’s Pam’s House Blend doesn’t post porn. (Nor does The Advocate, both of which I admire greatly.)

Towleroad isn’t an activist site, it’s not an analysis site, it’s a news/entertainment site, just like 365Gay is, and just like Joe.My.God is. I don’t think these three are trying to be the home of serious queer intellectual discussion and debate. That’s fine. They are a few of my favorite sites, which I read daily and respect for the excellent work they do. But Bilerico is trying to be the home of serious queer intellectual discussion and debate. Or claims to be.

If there’s a way to mix porn, journalism, and serious intellectual debate, while fighting intelligently for equality, and maintaining credibility to the rest of the world, I have yet to see it. Nor, quite frankly, do I want to.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

Trump Threatens to Violate Gag Order and Go to Jail: ‘I’ll Do That Sacrifice Any Day’

Published

9 hours ago

on

May 6, 2024

By

Just hours after a New York State Supreme Court Justice held Donald Trump in criminal contempt of court for violating his gag order and threatened him with jail time, the ex-president attacked several of the judges overseeing his cases, and suggested he may violate the gag order for the good of the U.S. Constitution.

“Because this judge has given me a gag order and says you’ll go to jail if you violate it. And frankly, you know what, our Constitution is much more important than jail. It’s not even close. I’ll do that sacrifice any day,” Trump claimed.

Trump is on trial for 34 criminal felonies for falsification of business records, which experts describe as election interference after he paid “hush money” to an adult film actress in an effort to keep his alleged affair away from the public eye just before the 2016 presidential election.

The ex-president, who announced his 2024 run for the White House, insiders say, to escape prosecution for a wide variety of alleged crimes, began his Monday post-trial news conference with reporters by criticizing the prosecution’s announcement it expects to wrap up its portion of the trial in about two weeks.

READ MORE: ‘Israel Aid, Ukraine Aid, Kitchenaid’: Dem Mocks GOP’s ‘Hands Off Our Appliances’ Week

“The government just said that they want two to three more weeks,” Trump complained. “That means they want to get me off the [campaign] trail for two to three more weeks. Now, anybody in there would realize that there’s no case, they don’t have a case. Every legal scholar says they don’t have a case. This is just a political witch. It’s election interference. And this is really truly election interference, and it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace, and in every poll I’m leading by a lot.”

Those statements are false.

The New York Post reports, “Prosecutor Josh Steinglass estimated that the DA’s office would wrap up its case around May 21, two weeks from tomorrow. But he cautioned that’s a ‘rough estimate.'”

Concluding the District Attorney’s Office did have a case, a Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts.

A great many legal scholars say there is a case.

There is no evidence of a “political witch-hunt.”

Trump is not leading in all the polls, nor, in all the ones he is leading in, is he leading by “a lot.” Nor do political candidates get exempt from prosecution because they may be leading in a particular poll.

The ex-president went on to claim prosecutors “figure maybe they can do something here, maybe they can do, this case should be over, this case should have never been brought.”

“And then Alvin Bragg brought the case, as soon as, when I’m running and leading, that’s when they decided, let’s go bring a case. So it’s a disgrace. But we just heard two to three more weeks. I thought that we’re finished today and they are finished today. We look at what’s happening. I thought they were going to be finished today and then 2 to 3 more weeks,” he again complained, again saying prosecutors “all want to keep me off the campaign trail. That’s all this is about. This about election interference. How do we stop it? And it’s a disgrace.”

READ MORE: ‘I’m Not Talking About That Meeting’: Noem Implies She May Have Met With Kim Jong Un

Trump then brought up the gag order.

“Where I can basically, I have to watch every word I tell you people, you asked me a question, a simple question I’d like to give it but I can’t talk about it,” he claimed, falsely.

“Because this judge has given me a gag order and say you’ll go to jail if you violate it. And frankly, you know what, our Constitution is much more important than jail. It’s not even close. I’ll do that sacrifice any day.”

Trump attacked three of judges overseeing his case, excluding U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon.

“But what’s happening here is a disgrace and the appellate courts ought to get involved. New York looks so bad, system of so called justice was so bad between this judge and [Judge Arthur] Engoron and [Judge Lewis] Kaplan the triple teamed with the corrupt judges is a disgrace to our nation. So I should be out there campaigning.”

Watch Trump’s remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: Congressman Pummeled for Praising Students Mocking Black Protester With Monkey Sounds

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Israel Aid, Ukraine Aid, Kitchenaid’: Dem Mocks GOP’s ‘Hands Off Our Appliances’ Week

Published

12 hours ago

on

May 6, 2024

By

Last year in January, in the wake of a study that found 650,000 children have developed asthma because of gas stoves, Bloomberg News reported: “US Safety Agency to Consider Ban on Gas Stoves Amid Health Fears.”

There was no ban in the works or on the way, and the chair of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was forced to issue a statement promising, “I am not looking to ban gas stoves and the CPSC has no proceeding to do so.”

Republicans however, went on the attack, with some, like U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), a physician, shouting on social media, “I’ll NEVER give up my gas stove. If the maniacs in the White House come for my stove, they can pry it from my cold dead hands. COME AND TAKE IT!!”

Congressman Jackson soon doubled-down, appearing on Newsmax.

One month later, West Virginia Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Manchin teamed up with several Republicans to protect Americans’ “right” to non-electric cooking.

READ MORE: ‘I’m Not Talking About That Meeting’: Noem Implies She May Have Met With Kim Jong Un

“Gas stoves have been in the news lately and I’ve come out strongly against the Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuing any ban of gas stoves,” Manchin declared, despite there being no possibility of that. “In fact, I’m introducing legislation today with Senator [Ted] Cruz that would ensure that they don’t and separately sending a letter to the commission with Senator [James] Lankford.”

For decades the scientific community has known about the health dangers of gas stoves, but Americans love them and there are no plans to have any federal government agency coming to take them away.

The Biden administration would like to help Americans buy new, energy-saving home appliances, but Republicans oppose those efforts as well.

Nearly sixteen months later, Republicans are still working to protect Americans from what some have suggested will be the federal government knocking on the doors of U.S. citizens to take away their gas stoves.

Last month, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson was all set to revive the House’s focus on ensuring Americans can continue to grill baby grill – indoors – childhood asthma-be-damned, and nearly put HR 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, and several others on the floor for votes, including:

The “Liberty in Laundry Act” (HR 7673), the “Clothes Dryers Reliability Act (HR 7645), the “Refrigerator Freedom Act” (HR 7637), the “Affordable Air Conditioning Act” (HR 7626), and the “Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act” (HR 7700).

But at the last minute he changed the schedule after aid to Ukraine and Israel became the national focus.

READ MORE: Judge Hands Trump ‘Incarceration’ Threat as Experts Say Next Time He’ll Toss Him in Jail

MSNBC’s Steve Benen reports Monday, “the ‘Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act’ … will likely reach the floor this week, possibly as early as tomorrow.”

One year ago this month, U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) delivered amusing remarks during a House hearing.

“I want to apologize on behalf of the Democratic Party that we have decided to put kids’ safety, in their neighborhoods from getting gunned down, in movie theaters, or grocery stores, or school churches, or synagogues – we as Democrats have clearly lost our way that we are not focused on appliances,” Moskowitz said sarcastically in a viral video.

Now he’s back, along with the House Republicans’ renewed focus on the false fear-mongering the federal government is coming for your home appliances, or is going to ban them.

In response to Axios’ Andrew Solender reporting, “Appliance Week is BACK in the House!” Congressman Moskowitz replied, “Israel aid, Ukraine aid, Humanitarian aid, Kitchenaid.”

He then grew even more sarcastically excited:

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Congressman Pummeled for Praising Students Mocking Black Protester With Monkey Sounds

 

Continue Reading

News

‘I’m Not Talking About That Meeting’: Noem Implies She May Have Met With Kim Jong Un

Published

15 hours ago

on

May 6, 2024

By

Republican South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem continues to make media appearances promoting her new book, which has received massive attention for the story about her shooting to death her 14-month old dog, Cricket, and a goat, and her reportedly false claim she met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

But in discussing that apparent lie that appears in her book, Noem appeared to tell a few more – and seemed to suggest she may have actually met with Kim Jong Un but should not have put that meeting in her memoir. Experts have said it’s unlikely she did meet with him.

“The book is called, ‘No Going Back,’ but it sounds like the publisher, Center Street, is going back on a couple of the details in the book,” CBS Mornings told Noem.

“Well, I don’t believe so,” Noem replied.

After hearing the apparently false details of her alleged meeting with Kim Jong Un being read on-air straight from her book, Noem explained, “when I became aware of that we changed the content, and the future editions will be adjusted.”

READ MORE: Judge Hands Trump ‘Incarceration’ Threat as Experts Say Next Time He’ll Toss Him in Jail

Noem also said she’s “met with many, many world leaders, I’ve traveled around the world. I should not have put that anecdote in the book, and at my request they have removed it.”

She was then asked, “That specifically didn’t happen?” but Noem appeared to brush off the question.

“What I’m saying is I’m not talking about that meeting, I’m not talking about my meetings with world leaders, there are some that are in the book and there’s some that are not in the book.”

Asked, “Did you tell your ghost writer to write that?” Noem refused to answer the question.

“I specifically have worked on policy for over 30 years, and over that time I have traveled around the world and met with leaders around the world. And that anecdote, I’ve asked them to change the content, and it will be removed.”

“It’s a simple question, did you or did you not meet with Kim Jong Un?”

“That’s the answer that I have for you,” Noem replied.

READ MORE: Congressman Pummeled for Praising Students Mocking Black Protester With Monkey Sounds

She also did not tell CBS why she chose to put it in the book at all, if she knew it was false.

Noem does not mention that she recorded the audio book version for “No Going Back,” and would have read those words about meeting with the North Korean dictator aloud, yet apparently did not ask her publisher to remove it until a local newspaper, The Dakota Scout, published a report starting her account of the event was “in doubt.”

On Sunday, Noem first began to suggest the meeting might have taken place. Speaking with CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Axios reported, “Noem declined to talk about specific meetings she had with various world leaders, and never outright said she didn’t meet with Kim during the interview.”

A CBS News transcript of that interview shows “Face the Nation” moderator Margaret Brennan saying, “you released video of your recording of the audio book. you didn’t catch these errors when you were recording it?”

“Well, Margaret, as soon as it was brought to my attention, I took action to make sure that it was reflected,” Noem responded, before leaping into an attack on the media.

Also on Sunday, The Independent reported, “North Korea experts say it’s highly unlikely Ms Noem ever met the North Korean leader.”

“From 2011 to 2018, Mr Kim did not leave North Korea, according to University of Notre Dame professor and North Korea expert George Lopez.” The Independent added, “Benjamin Young, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and an expert on North Korea, told The Dakota Scout that Ms Noem’s account of meeting Kim was ‘dubious.'”

“I cover North Korea very closely, and I have never heard of Kim Jong Un meeting congressmen or congresswomen,” Young said.

Watch Noem’s full CBS interview from Monday below or at this link.

READ MORE: RFK Jr., Embracing Far-Right, Spoke at Fundraiser for Anti-Government Group With J6 Ties

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.