from http://www.foxnews.com/
Anti-Porn Groups Tell NBC to Nix ‘Playboy Club’ Before it Airs, Or Else
By Meaghan Murphy
NBC’s new series “The Playboy Club” hasn’t even aired its first episode, and some people already want it off the air.
First, NBC’s Salt Lake City, UT affiliate, KSL-TV, refused to air the show, saying that their station is “completely inconsistent with the Playboy brand.”
Now an anti-porn foundation is determined to shut down the show completely
“What’s shown in ‘The Playboy Club’ is not real—Playboy definitely damages people. It’s pornography, it’s sex trafficking and it exploits women,” the founder of Pink Cross, ex porn actress Shelley Lubben, tells FOX411.com. “The series looks like it’s all cute, taking place back in the old days—it seems harmless, but then they show a quick clip of three people going at it in the bathroom. NBC is breaking the law with this show—they’re not meeting FCC standards.”
The nonprofit group Morality in Media agrees.
“We’re launching a big effort with our web site, closetheclubonnbc.com,” Dawn Hawkins, executive director, Morality In Media, tells FOX411.com. “We’re asking supporters to sign the pledge to and to contact their local NBC affiliates and ask them not to air the show. And as soon as we discover who is sponsoring the show, we’ll ask our supporters to contact them as well.”
Hawkins charges that “The Playboy Club” glamorizes pornography. “We know now, years later, that pornography is very harmful to society. It leads to addiction in children and adults, increased sex trafficking violence against women—and ‘Playboy’ is really the root of all of this. We just don’t want to see it glamorized any further, which it will be if it’s aired on NBC.”
With NBC in fourth place among broadcast networks, new president Steve Burke is under intense pressure to increase ratings. “When he was appointed, Burke said he was going to push the envelope,” Hawkins explains. “They want to get their ratings up, and they know that controversy surrounding this show might help.”
While "The Playboy Club" might help NBC’s sagging ratings, it could also run afoul of federal law.
“We don’t know the specific content of ‘The Playboy Club’ yet, but reports are that it will include simulated sex and nudity,” attorney and president and CEO of Morality in Media Patrick A. Truman tells FOX411.com. "Simulated sex can be prosecuted by Department of Justice as obscene and nudity, so long as it is not obscene, can be prosecuted by the FCC. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit struck down FCC’s indecency regulations, but that ruling has application only in that circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to hear an appeal of that ruling. We will file an amicus brief.”
In addition to Morality in Media’s filing, Truman is issuing a warning to the network—and to Playboy.
“Every advertiser on The Playboy Club will be boycotted, every local affiliate of NBC will be bombarded by a very large segment of society that is sick and tired of those making money off the sexual exploitation of women," he said. "The NBC brand, as well as Playboy will suffer great cost.”
NBC did not responded to FOX411.com’s request for comment.
OMG Shelley and her Christian Mafia found ANOTHER way to strongarm the public. Now they are threatening to go after a TV show (that she hasn’t seen yet) just because of the possible maybe subject matter the kinda thinks it may contain? That girl is a trip.
Playboy is the most tame of any adult magazine. Comparing Playboy to “sex trafficing” (probably 1st time those 2 used in same sentence) is like making a peanut butter and tuna fish sandwich.
Here’s Shelley’s quote from the original press release: “Porn is sex trafficking. I know because I was enslaved.”
Once again, Mrs. Lubben trades on her non-starter of a porn career to seek relevance, press exposure, and more donations she can pocket.
Oh, and if you want to have a laugh, here’s a link to video of the infamous Cambridge Union debate. Shelley’s up last. I’ll leave it to viewers to comment on her deportment, as well as the content of her free-association ramblings.
http://www.cus.org/connect/debates/2011/this-house-believes-pornography-does-a-good-public-service
As for “The Playboy Club”, what she and Mr. Trueman (FOX got the spelling of his name wrong) can never understand is that attacks like this will create the BEST possible publicity for Playboy — a brand whose modern relevance has been diluted by the continuous reinforcement of its association with its octogenarian founder’s erstwhile romances. What Morality In Media has done here is describe a really hot, sexy, boundary-pushing show — one which will now surely find an even larger audience. This is free publicity of the best kind — watch our show: so hot it was banned in Utah!
The folks at Playboy and NBC are dancing right about now.
“Porn is sex trafficking. I know because I was enslaved.”
Enslaved? You mean like real sex trafficking where women in large numbers, have a gun put to their head, are abducted, beaten, can’t walk away or escape and often times killed or disappear?
That’s even looser language than OSHA or the AHF use!
Loose language is certainly much worse and damaging than loose women!
@ Michael Whiteacre – well – I just watched the entire debate…
I was impressed with both the pro and anti porn arguments – for the most part. Nearly every presenter was an intellectual and argued deep perspectives in relation to the issue.
I don’t think this was an appropriate platform for Lubben’s speech. It might be time for the Pink Cross to groom Jenny Case (who I’ve spoken with – she’s very genuine and bright), Jan (who I’ve heard is very quick and in the process of continuing her education) or Scott Smith (a VERY bright young man who has an excellent memory and is passionate but fair and relevant about his views) to be “anti-porn” representatives at events such as this.
My favorite argument came from Johnny Anglais – I liked his point about how the fashion industry isn’t condemned entirely because of child labor in certain cases overseas. That was an excellent analogy.
@Monica – I enjoyed the debate as well, although I was disappointed by the anti-porn psychologist who refused to cite his sources — he essentially said “Trust me.”
Dines is an excellent speaker, but she was destroyed by Jessi Fischer’s assault on her data, and her analysis.
The real surprise was indeed Johnny Anglais, whose easy demeanor and natural way with presenting an argument was quite winning.
If you watch closely, you can see Gail Dines biting her fingernail nervously right before Lubben stepped up to present her speech. Photos in my possession show Dines pinching the bridge of her nose in apparent mental discomfort as Lubben rambled anecdotally, and cited false numbers as “irrefutable proof” (by far the biggest laugh of the night).
All in all, Lubben disgraced the concepts of critical thinking (by asserting that only if you’ve done as much gangbanging as her are you qualified to address these issues), and of formal debate; insulted not only performers but college-age women as dummies
who don’t know how to read a contract or understand words like litigation; brought her religion (which is faith not knowledge, into it, in a distinctly irreligious land.
I agree that Pink Cross would be better served by more rational spokespeople, but since its entire platform springs from Lubben’s false charges (plus a poor grasp of the political and legal process), and Fundamentalist Christianity (with some truly cult-like elements), I don’t see any of the self-described “disciples” of the “Rebel Prophet” ever faring much better outside of a church stage. As for Jenni Case, I have found her to be snide and disingenuous, and far less charismatic than St Shelley. Plus, as someone who performed in even fewer scenes that Lubben (and apparently had a more extensive prostitution career), I don’t see how she really helps the ticket.
@Michael
How was the anti-porn psychologist saying, “Trust Me?” He said he wasn’t going to cite everything because of time. He also stated that he would gladly share his sources to people after the debate.
I wouldn’t say that Dines was destroyed by Jessi Fischer. Fischer’s quote was about internet pornography. I thought the debate was about pornography in general.
I can think of about ten people who were exposed to pornography (myself included) before the age of 11 and I am sure there are better studies than the ones cited by Fischer that would prove that as well.
I was at the debate in Cambridge, and I can tell you, Jessi Fischer completely discredited herself when she said that pornography is good for marriages. There is absolutely NO evidence for this claim; on the contrary, there is plenty of evidence on the contrary, that being, that it leads to divorce or maritial problems. I was married to a porn addict — and yes, he WAS addicted — and have talked to plenty of other women in the same situation. We would disagree with Mrs. Fischer’s claims, as would many psychologists and lawyers.
As for us “disciples of the rebel prophet,” let me just say one thing. Shelley is reaching out to a group of people that no one else seems to give a damn about, especially not the industry. From the beginning of the debate, she was put on the defensive, and Anna Span has lied before, specifically in an interview that she conducted with Matt Cooper in Ireland, whom I also talked to. She claims that no one takes drugs or is abused. No one, well, that is a pretty large number. I find it hard to believe that for someone who has made 250 movies, she has not encountered ANYONE taking drugs.
The truth is, NONE of the arguments made by the pro-porn side were too convincing, in my opinion. The question here is whether porn does a GOOD PUBLIC SERVICE. Can we HONESTLY say that society has been made better because of porn? And if porn improves our quality of life, then how?!
Not ONE PERSON was able to point out how porn does a good public service; on the other hand, I believe it WAS proven that porn is damaging.
WRONG!!!
I have helped out plenty o’ marriages with good ole porn. I even created a special section on the movie side for couples. It’s done quite well. Yes, believe it or not, there are couples that enjoy watching porn together.
Masturbating is a natural, harmless high. Porn just facilitates the process. It’s an amazing reliever of stress. I don’t know about you women, but it’s a goddamn miracle-working process for us menfolk, and this is coming from a happily married man. Ms. Fartz thanks the lord every day that there’s porn to keep me happy between trying to squeeze sex in between two work/child-raising schedules that just don’t coincide.
The public service thing is a nonsense fucking point. Where I argue from, we call that “splitting hairs”. While we’re banishing things that don’t do a good public service, we might as well eliminate alcohol, potato chips, squirrels, etc.
You might as well go back to the myths of rape and ripped vaginas. Those nonsense arguments actually hold more water than all of this public service horse shit.
Akin to the point that guns don’t kill people, people do, porn is not to blame, people are. It can be a tool or a weapon, depending how you use it.
bobsdriven says:
“I am sure there are better studies than the ones cited by Fischer that would prove that as well.”
You are absolutely mistaken, Bob. There are none, and in any case, proving that some people of a certain age were exposed to pornography doesn’t mean it’s a statistically significant number (let alone the new “average” age of first exposure), and it also does not prove a correlation between exposure and negative development.
bobsdriven also says:
“How was the anti-porn psychologist saying, “Trust Me?” He said he wasn’t going to cite everything because of time. He also stated that he would gladly share his sources to people after the debate.”
Because THAT’S NOT HOW A DEBATE WORKS. You listen to the speakers, then you vote. You don’t get to interview them and asses the validity of their sources and THEN vote.
@April – Go take another drink of KoolAid.
Have you no shame, April? You call Anna Span a liar when your own dear Shelley has lied about nearly every aspect of her own story.
“Shelley is reaching out to a group of people that no one else seems to give a damn about.”
By reaching out you mean sending them messages via social media? Inundating and browbeating them, tempting them with seductive offers (like mainstream TV exposure), and even resorting to blackmailing them into joining her crusade (as she did with Taryn Thomas) when they turn her down?
Or do you mean Shelley’s trips to Vegas and elsewhere paid for with contributions, where she has her photo taken with actual porn stars so she can raise money off of their celebrity?
On June 7th in LA, at the Cal-OSHA meeting, the adult performer community made it crystal fucking clear that it does not want Shelley’s help, nor will it stand for being insulted, demeaned and stereotyped by Lubben and her Pink Cross flunkies ANYMORE. They do NOT want Shelley to say she represents them, and they are going to keep showing up again and again to shoot her down. Pink Cross might as well stay home, or speak at church bake sales, because no one at Cal-OSHA or in the legislature is listening.
“From the beginning of the debate, she was put on the defensive.” YOU’RE GODDAMN RIGHT SHE WAS — I made it my mission to get the FACTS about your prophet to the pro-porn debaters beforehand, and I will do it again and again and again. I know it made her nervous; knowing that she could not lie with impunity. Maybe that’s why she spent those 40 minutes or so in the ladies room stall before the debate.
Hey, April, you were there — why was Shelley slurring her words so badly? Are you going to lie too, or are you in denial about the “recovered” St. Shelley.
@Michael Whiteacre:
Michael, I have worked with Shelley and the Pink Cross for 3 years now, and yes, Pink Cross DOES reach out to men and women who come to us for help and support, and no, it’s not just in the ways that you are citing….and Pink Cross isn’t just Shelley Lubben. She is the one who founded it, but Pink Cross is a network of ex-porn stars and ex-porn addicts who care about the adult industry workers and want to help and encourage them. Yes, sir, we do go to conventions in Vegas and Los Angeles, and yes, we do use donations, but we are very honest and upfront with what the donations are used for, and our donors know this. We are a NON-PROFIT Foundation — of course we receive donations!
As for your remark about Shelley slurring her words, well, I think that is pretty unfair. You are making blanket accusations against her about something you have absolutely no proof of. I have known Shelley for 3 years. She is very professional, and for you to accuse her of something like that (at least, that’s what I assume you are accusing her of) is pretty low. You’re an attorney. Don’t you need PROOF before you make an accusation like that?! Slander is not befitting.
Yes, I was at Cambridge. I was working with Pink Cross as Shelley’s assistant at the time. I was not at the CalOSHA meeting, but from what I understand, it was very chaotic and disorderly….a lot of people up-in-arms because the the state is finally laying down the law, and no one is too happy about it. Sure, I don’t doubt that there are a lot of people in the industry who want nothing to do with us, but we don’t push ourselves on anyone. We are here for those people who DO want help, and I can assure you, Mr. Whiteacre, that those people do exist. We get tons of e-mails from women in all facets of the sex industry who want help, are in need of support and encouragement.
As far as Cambridge goes, I still think it was a sleazy tactic by Anna Span. The topic wasn’t “What are Shelley Lubben’s credentials” — the topic was “DOES PORN PERFORM A GOOD PUBLIC SERVICE.” I know the pro-porn camp is under the delusion that they won, but the truth is, the vast majority of people were UNDECIDED, which means that neither side won. There were some good arguments on both sides, of course, but still, they didn’t prove that porn does a good public service, not by a long shot. So, congratulations, you managed to attack Shelley, but you failed to win the argument that everyone showed up to win.
@Fartz
You say you have helped marriages using “good ole porn.” How? Are you a psychologist? a counselor? Interested to know how you helped a lot of marriages using porn, because many studies show that it is NOT helpful to marriages — and no, it’s not just the moral majority, religious right-wing fanatics who hold this position. If you open your eyes and look at the big picture, beyond your own libido, you will see that porn has done a hell of a lot more harm to society than good.
From a personal aspect, porn contributed ENORMOUSLY to the demise of my marriage and our sex life.
Pornography actually leads to the break-up of a lot of marriages, and this is a fact.
As far as your observation that the public service point is nonsense — nonsense or not, in your eyes, that WAS the point of the debate, which neither side was able to prove or disprove.
@April – You ignorance is only matched by your disingenuousness.
You write: “We get tons of e-mails from women in all facets of the sex industry who want help, are in need of support and encouragement.” Support and encouragement? Like telling them to sell any possessions they may have purchased with money earned from sex work? Even their only means of transportation?
Shelley is not a therapist, nor a psychologist, she is not a counselor; she has no training to perform this job and more than Fartz does! — Shelley has an online degree from an unaccredited school. She should not be offering advice and counsel to people in crisis. She could be doing grave harm to them. People in crisis don’t need a pep talk — they need help and guidance from qualified professionals. A copy of Shelley’s CD isn’t going to cut it.
You also write: “your remark about Shelley slurring her words, well, I think that is pretty unfair. You are making blanket accusations against her about something you have absolutely no proof of. I have known Shelley for 3 years. She is very professional, and for you to accuse her of something like that (at least, that’s what I assume you are accusing her of) is pretty low. You’re an attorney. Don’t you need PROOF before you make an accusation like that?! Slander is not befitting.”
Listen, you cretin, an inquiry (why was Shelley slurring her words so badly?”) is not an accusation. Is that concept too difficult for you to grasp? (And, in any case, slander is spoken defamation, libel is printed defamation.) Don’t you DARE accuse me of defaming Shelley Lubben. I back up my claims when I make them. Unlike Shelley.
And you still did not answer the question — why was Shelley slurring her words so badly?
You write, “She is very professional” — but that is not an answer. Are you covering up for her?
The truth shall set you free, April. And the truth will out — you had better believe it.
Finally, you write: “the pro-porn camp is under the delusion that they won” You are delusional. Every debate has a winner and a loser. Shelley’s side lost. Period. You and Shelley flew all the way to England just to have her make a fool of herself — and on a video that will be out there forever.
Don’t you guys know she could have just stayed in Bakersfield and done that?
She’s only going after this, for the press. And to get more money…
@ Michael Whiteacre:
(1) I said that we offer encouragement and support. Encouragement is not counseling. I never claimed that we do counseling, in the clinical sense. Shelley is an ordained chaplain, as am I, and chaplains and pastors DO do counseling, but no, we are not psychologists or psychiatrists, nor do we claim to be.
(2) No need for the name-calling. Michael, I am not here to disrespect you. I have no desire to argue with you, but I cannot stand by and listen to accusations fly against Shelley and not say anything. I have never seen her “strongarm” or blackmail anyone, which is basically what you are accusing her of.
You ask why she was slurring her words? Perhaps she was tired? The fact that we flew in the day before the debate and had literally no time to recover from the jet lag, and then Shelley had to prepare for this debate. All of us were tired…or perhaps she was nervous? I also know that when I speak in public, I get nervous, and my mouth gets really dry. Doesn’t come off real well in the enunciation. Other than that, I really have no other explanation.
What exactly would I be “covering up?”
(3) The fact remains, Michael, the majority of voters were undecided. I don’t remember what the final vote counts were, but most of the people voted neither for nor against.
I know that you think I am “ignorant,” but that is still no reason to resort to name-calling. We are both adults.
@April – Yes, Shelley certainly does get cottonmouth pretty bad. There are many examples of that on audio and video. For someone who works (in part) as a traveling public speaker, that’s a little odd, don’t you think? You’d think that omnipotent and omniscient Yahweh, in His divine love and mercy, would grant the anointed person who is “able to speak on His behalf” with at least basic ability or skills to counteract that problem. I mean, He created the universe, but Shelley’s cottonmouth is not reparable?
Do you mean to say that Shelley actually prepared for that debate? LOL
Are you ordained in the same order as Shelley? The one where you fill out some paperwork, get a letter from your local body of Christ, and then the guy with the coffee roasting company lays hands on you and bingo you’re a chaplain?
You say you’ve never seen her “strongarm” anyone — have you read her email exchanges (available online) with Taryn Thomas? If you honestly want to stand up for your friend and ally — which I think is perfectly commendable — you should read those email exchanges and then come back here and defend Shelley. Without doing that you are dismissing an allegation without even examining it.
The fact that “the majority of voters were undecided” is meaningless, April. That’s like saying that Obama did not “win” the presidency because the majority of Americans did not vote for him. Abstentions are part of the process, and the motion carried. Those were the rules of the debate.
As for the name calling, when someone accuses me of a tortious act — and that person is basically talking out their ass (if you’ll pardon the expression; although Shelley used far worse language at Cambridge) — it gets me riled. I’ll endeavor to remain more collected in our future exchanges if you will also.
Cordially,
MW
So nice to see one of Shelley’s sockpuppets…errrrr, associates come over here and attempt to confuse people. The video, however, reveals the truth far better.
No, April, you cannot convince me that Shelley was “tired”, since she was the closer of the debate of six people, and there was even a question and answer segment inbetween, long before she took the mic (or, more likely, bent down to it). She had ample time to adjust her transcript to the other debators. yet she and she alone chose the method she ultimately took.
Perhaps she simply realized that she was way in over her head in this, and decided to just wing it the only way she knew, especially after Anna Span lobbed that attack on her pseudoscience and willingness to blackmail people for financial shakedowns and members. Or, perhaps, she was indeed drunk.
As for your attack on Jessi Fischer: all she said was that her first exposure to erotic material came at age 11. That proves…what, exactly?? That her ultimate pro-sex/anticensorship position stems directly from merely being exposed to porn at an early age? That, if she hadn’t been exposed until she reached, say 21, then she would be more of an antiporn activist like Shelley?? That, she is tainted forever as a mere slut for not having the same negative experiences and conversion that Ministress Lubben or Gail Dines had?? And besides, how exactly does that in any way deflect from her beliefs, other than the fact that they are diametrically different from yours or Shelley’s??
And yeah, more people abstained than voted yes or no, but abstaining votes didn’t count here. The main point remains that in a debate in a relatively conservative upper class private university, the antiporn argument LOST, and relatively handily, too. No bit of spin will change that, or the fact that Shelley’s meltdown had a great deal to do with your side losing the debate. Not to mention that you had the premier star antiporn polemicist and a local activist on your side against a male British porn performer, a female feminist pornographer who lost her bid for Parliament, and an mostly unknown American blogger sex researcher. And yet, with all that, you still LOST.
Think about that, Ms. April, before you respond further.
Anthony
@ Michael Whiteacre
First off, let me apologize if I came off as disagreeable or hostile. I certainly didn’t mean to. I will absolutely agree to remain more collected, and I appreciate you doing the same. Thank you.
Now, to address your points.
(1) To be honest, I have not noticed that she gets cotton mouth. I know that when I am speaking, I do, simply because I am nervous and that’s just the way my body reacts. So, if she does, I can sort of understand why. As far as God goes, well, Moses had an awful stuttering problem, and God brought Him before Pharoah. The apostle Paul had an awful eye condition that, from what I understand, was pretty grotesque. He was also a very poor speaker, but God also used him. If God can use those 2 men, He can use anyone.
(2) Yes, I am ordained in the same order as Shelley. A person doesn’t necessarily need a college degree to be ordained. Experience counts as well. I know a really great guy who is a firefighter and a chaplain, and I don’t believe that he has a degree. Yes, Shelley got her education online. I have not received my bachelors yet, but I am pretty darn close, having received my formal education from Vanguard University, and I was also in the Navy, which also accounts for a part of my education.
(3) I went ahead and read the exchanges between Shelley and Taryn Thomas. It sounds to me like it started off okay, but the second exchange, for whatever reason, Shelley sort of went off. It certainly could have been handled better. I also notice that Shelley didn’t write her back after Taryn wrote her back the second time, which indicates to me that she was being respectful. I agree that it could have been handled better, but Michael, I know Shelley very well, and aside from this, I have never seen her try and threaten anyone. I agree, this exchange doesn’t look good at all, but on the other hand, I have seen Shelley respect and love on people who have disrespected, even betrayed, her. She truly does care about people. I also notice that this exchange took place quite a few years ago. It sounds to me like Shelley spoke rashly, without fully considering the situation, maybe out of emotion. I’ve not heard of any other hostile exchanges like this with anyone else, so I am giving her grace on this one.
Again, I am sorry for accusing you falsely. You have my sincerest apology.
April shouldn’t you guys be lobbying against Cinemax, HBO, Showtime and other cable channels.
I remember watching Truth or Dare with Madonna at age 8 and staying up late and being exposed to one of those soft core movies. It didn’t bother me and it certainly didn’t turn me into a slut.
Sex is a part of life – turning a blind eye to it is why we have many of the issues we have. Lots of teen pregnancies, STD’s, and more. If they actually educated kids on condoms, testing, and birth control. We wouldn’t have the issues we do in schools and in America in GENERAL.
BECAUSE DUMB, UNEDUCATED PEOPLE THINK AIDS IS ONLY A ‘GAY’ DISEASE. WHEN BLACK WOMEN IN FACT ARE THE LEAD CARRIERS. AND PEOPLE DON’T THINK THEY NEED TO GET TESTED IF THEY ONLY SLEPT WITH A FEW PEOPLE. WHAT THEY DON’T REALIZE IS WHEN YOU SLEEP WITH SOMOENE YOU SLEEP WITH EVERYONE THEY SLEPT WITH.
Christian’s LIKE YOURSELF (CLAIM) and conservatives want to hide everything and go against everything impure, but always seem to get their hand stuck in the cookie jar.
Playboy the magazine is ART. It’s shot beautifully, photoshopped to the hilt, and done professionally. Hugh fought long and hard before either you or Shelley were born for the right to shoot and has fought long and hard for freedom of speech and expression. After all that’s what America is supposedly based on FREEDOM.
Yet, you seem and Shelley seem hell bent on taken people’s freedom away. If you don’t like freedom and don’t like porn move to China. But you see you do like freedom – it gives you the right to protest how you are and even tell lies and support lies. And also believe what you want to believe in and what deity you want to believe in. However I find most churches only use it for money and use GOD for their hate or selfish reasoning. Like I believe Shelley does. She wants fame and money. Just like all those churches on television. Most Christian churches and their spokespeople are usually untrustworthy and crooks!
And as Shelley stated herself she’s a hustler and is good at it. So this is perfect for her.
“African Americans overall accounted for 45 percent of new HIV infections in 2006, while representing only 12 percent of the U.S. population”, said the director of the CDC.
The reason black women are claimed to be leading HIV carriers Kelly is because blacks, along with gays have been deemed “high risk”, and “risk” is part of the means of ascertaining whether a person testing is HIV+ or not. If you watch House of Numbers (and you should because if you don’t your depriving yourself of a lot of information and opinions and just like a trial you need to hear more than one side if you want to have a chance of knowing what is true), you’ll see that “risk factors” are part of the means of determining if a person is HIV+ or not. I know that sounds crazy and it is crazy, but that’s actually what’s going on. HIV test manufacturers tell us their tests are presumptive. This is part a campaign of eugenics, as Nancy Turner Banks (a black woman) has said.. Blacks (and gays) have been TARGETED! Stress is on of a very long list of “false positives”. Black women are pushed to test much more than white women or whites.
There are over 70 different things that can trigger a false positive on HIV tests including vaccines, other medications and pregnancy! This is just one reason why the manufacturers of the HIV tests do not guarantee the results of their tests. Furthermore, the most aggressive campaign for getting tested is taking place in the black community which also contributes to inflated statistics.
http://www.blacknews.com/news/why_black_people_should_not_take_hiv_tests101.shtml
Interesting Jeremy I will check it out
@ Anthony Kennerson
I know for a fact that Shelley was tired, as was I. The fact that she was the closer of the debate matters very little as far as that is concerned.I was at the dinner table with her before the debate, and I can assure you, without a doubt, that Shelley was not drunk.
As far as Jessi Fischer is concerned, I said absolutely nothing that you implied I did. I thought she was very articulate and made some good arguments…BUT, as far as I am concerned, she also sort of blew it at the end when she implied that pornography is good for marriages. My own experience, experiences I have heard from other women, and studies that I have read tell me otherwise. I said absolutely NOTHING to the avail of her being “tainted forever as a slut.” Please do not put words in my mouth like that.
But, let’s face it, she was coming from a completely different worldview, and so yes, of course I disagree. What really got me during the debate, was how she pointed out that the statistic regarding the age when children are first exposed to porn was incorrect, then she non-chalantly corrects it by saying that most children are actually 14….like it’s no big deal. Is she actually implying that it’s ok for a child of 14 to be viewing porn?! I have a 14-year old daughter. Most parents I know wouldn’t want their 14-year old kids watching porn.
No one is refuting that more people voted for porn than against it, but the fact remains that most of the people in attendance couldn’t decide at all. It all goes back to what one particular audience member pointed out during the Q & A — that all people were doing were bouncing statistics off of each other and not making any relevant points. During Anna’s speech, I only heard her point out one reason why porn does a good public service. The rest of her speech involved either attacking Shelley, or explaining her own personal reasons for being in the porn industry.
@ MrsKellyShore
The Pink Cross is not the only group in opposition to this show. Morality In Media are the ones spearheading the camplaign, but Pink Cross is certainly in agreement….and yes, we are also against “Skinemax” and “Showtime After Dark,” or whatever it’s called, but this campaign isn’t about that. It’s about a show that glamorizes the Playboy empire.
I totally agree with you when you say that we shouldn’t turn a blind eye to sex, and I also agree that doing so leads to things like teen pregnancies, STDs, etc. I am a Christian, and I for one do not want to turn a blind eye to these things. If I wanted to just turn a blind eye, I wouldn’t be working with Pink Cross. You’re right that a lot of Christians get their hands “stuck inside the cookie jar,” but in a culture that is so innundated and obsessed with sex, it’s not surprising. It’s pretty hard to avoid it when you’re driving down the freeway, and a huge billboard with some bikini-clad woman with her chest hanging out saying “Come to such-and-such a strip club” is in your face. I can drive down any freeway in L.A. and see at least 1 or 2 of them. When you’re confronted with something like that, it is pretty hard to just turn it off. I am not making excuses here — just giving some food for thought.
I know that some people say that Playboy is “art,” but that is all relative, because what some see as art, others see as perversion. Men who are addicted to porn and sex cannot look at a Playboy magazine as just “art.” It’s not just about the show, either. What it comes down to is what Playboy represents, which is Heffner’s philosophy. His whole philosophy is based on objectification of women, and this show is an attempt to further incorporate pornography into the mainstream culture.
@Michael
“You are absolutely mistaken, Bob. There are none, and in any case, proving that some people of a certain age were exposed to pornography doesn’t mean it’s a statistically significant number (let alone the new “average” age of first exposure), and it also does not prove a correlation between exposure and negative development.”
Do a search for “average age of porn exposure” and tell me what comes up. I am interested.
You haven’t recognized the fact that Fischer’s stat was for internet porn exposure. Wouldn’t you think there is a difference or there is a possibility of there being a difference?
“Because THAT’S NOT HOW A DEBATE WORKS. You listen to the speakers, then you vote. You don’t get to interview them and asses the validity of their sources and THEN vote.”
So a debate works in such a way that you spend all of your time citing statistics and their sources? Is there not some kind of trust and credibility of the debaters?
Do you not do research on the politicians you vote for to make sure their claims are valid? Come on, that’s just common sense.
April, I don’t think its healthy to say that some men have an addiction to porn. Setting the mental frame so that men must battle their sexual thoughts is kinda like saying they shouldn’t think of pink elephants. (“No pink elephants, no pink elephants, no pink elephants–PINK ELEPHANT!”)
There are ways to change one’s porn habits without calling it an addiction….
Origin-
Welcomez back, homie.
April:
I sell porn. Couples buy it. They don’t come in dragging their fucking feet bitching about how they’re buying more marital destructive materials. They’re happy. They enjoy my advice and wit and they come back to buy more. Just adults, having fun, and enjoying their freedoms.
You and shelley and the rest are the lowest of the fucking low. You work off of an agenda that is ultimately designed to make money. You claim that you help, but in reality, you really want to make decisions for the rest of us. Nice name drop on morality in media. They’re just teeming with honesty. Fuck you christians and your constant need to feel that you should babysit the rest of us.
Adding to Origen’s point, and emphasizing Bill Maher’s, the only indication of a pornography/sex addiction is having a dick and balls. Ask any honest, open card-carrying dick and balls member and they’ll tell you the same thing. You have no clue what it’s like to be born with such an outrageous libido because of natural hormonal development and have absolutely no where to go with it. Just be happy that the majority of guys out there use self control and porn to curb a libido that could spin out of control otherwise.
The days of religious control are starting to become clearly numbered. The atheists, agnostics, etc. of the world are becoming less and less afraid to stand up and fight back against you condescending slime. Keep up the good work of helping girls that need it, but stay the fuck out of my descisions.
And fuck you.
Thanks, Fartz. ^^^Harsh….
To add to what Fartz said (see above) In all honesty I believe if there was no porno (and no prostitution) then the cases of rape would skyrocket.
Responding to April point for point:
“I know for a fact that Shelley was tired, as was I. The fact that she was the closer of the debate matters very little as far as that is concerned.I was at the dinner table with her before the debate, and I can assure you, without a doubt, that Shelley was not drunk.”
OK…since you were there and I wasn’t, I’ll take your word for it. So, how else do you explain her meltdown, then?? How else do you explain her behavior, her erratic speech, her slurring? Maybe she thought that she was at a Christian ministry rally and that that approach would have rallied the audience?? Once again, the camera doesn’t lie.
And, in fact, the fact that she was last in the debate does matter because she had time enough to recupriate and she could have adjusted the tone of her speech to counter the others. Who’s to say that Gail Dines or Jessi Fischer didn’t had similar schedules??
“As far as Jessi Fischer is concerned, I said absolutely nothing that you implied I did. I thought she was very articulate and made some good arguments…BUT, as far as I am concerned, she also sort of blew it at the end when she implied that pornography is good for marriages. My own experience, experiences I have heard from other women, and studies that I have read tell me otherwise. I said absolutely NOTHING to the avail of her being “tainted forever as a slut.” Please do not put words in my mouth like that.
But, let’s face it, she was coming from a completely different worldview, and so yes, of course I disagree. What really got me during the debate, was how she pointed out that the statistic regarding the age when children are first exposed to porn was incorrect, then she non-chalantly corrects it by saying that most children are actually 14….like it’s no big deal. Is she actually implying that it’s ok for a child of 14 to be viewing porn?! I have a 14-year old daughter. Most parents I know wouldn’t want their 14-year old kids watching porn.”
OK, so you disagree strongly with Jessi Fischer’s core beliefs and statements…and I will accept and respect that. But, in Shelley Lubben’s review of the debate that she posted at her website, she personally attacked Ms. Fischer for the personal stat that she had first encountered porn at age 11, all but openly demonizing her as an irresponsible slut and using that to discredit her case. That was what I was talking about; nothing against you personally.
And as for the “exposure” question: well, let’s just say that we have a difference in philosophy here, because unlike you and Shelley, I fail to see how merely being exposed to a Playboy pictoral or watching a tape two adults engage in consensual sex at age 14 or 16 or 17 automatically does any amount of “damage” to an adolescent child’s upbrining. I mean, does watching your parents drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes automatically lead to you becoming a smoker or drinker?? (My parents smoked an average of 1-2 packs a day, and yet I managed to not even touch a cigarette, and has refrained for all of my 47 years.) Besides, it wouldn’t matter to you or Shelley if a person waited until he was 24 or 30 when he was exposed to porn; he would be equally condemned as the person who saw a Penthouse spread at 14. Sorry, but that’s a red herring.
“No one is refuting that more people voted for porn than against it, but the fact remains that most of the people in attendance couldn’t decide at all. It all goes back to what one particular audience member pointed out during the Q & A — that all people were doing were bouncing statistics off of each other and not making any relevant points. During Anna’s speech, I only heard her point out one reason why porn does a good public service. The rest of her speech involved either attacking Shelley, or explaining her own personal reasons for being in the porn industry.”
Funny, but isn’t part of the idea of defending the idea that porn offers a good public service the notion of defending your own work as a pornographer and how you got to become a spokesperson for and defender of porn?? And, it’s not as if the pro-porn side had an monopoly on ambush attacks; Shelley herself had launched a very personal attack on Anna Span herself the day before the debate as part of an interview she did for the Cambridge University student newspaper. All Anna Span did was to detail what she thought to be the hypocricies and distortions and contradictions in Lubben’s prior speeches and activism. A bit personal, perhaps, but fair enough for a debate.
You may say what you wish about how nobody was proving their points….but the scoreboard still says that your side lost the debate. They don’t give points for first downs in football, and they don’t offer points for abstensions. Besides that, I wonder if your attitude would be so dismissive if your side was on the positive end.
Maybe we should just agree to disagree here.
Anthony
Here is something Shelley Lubben said about Anna Span prior to the debate:
“I was watching one of Anna Span’s movies earlier today, with two girls using a champagne bottle to reach orgasm. The blonde girl looked like she was in so much pain. She hated it. It’s truly disgusting.”
The problem is, the scene to which she was referring, from Anna’s “Hug A Hoodie”, shows quite the opposite. And the behind-the-scenes section included on the DVD (which Anna kindly granted me the right to excerpt for my doc) shows that not only did that female performer LOVE using the bottle, IT WAS HER IDEA. She actually suggested it — and it’s all on video. After the scene she jumps up an HUGS Anna. She then sits down for a post-scene interview and talks about how being an adult performer has had numerous positive effects on her life.
This episode demonstrates, once again, that Shelley Lubben says any shit that comes into her head and expects people to believe it. The facts don’t matter — even when they’re in plain sight. As she has said many times, she thinks she possesses the ability to lie her way out of anything.
I also think it’s funny how Shelley’s stooges have to come here and fight her fucking battles for her. Watching Lubben debate is similar to watching DL do it. She has to resort to lies and sensationalism to make up for her utter lack of IQ. Every single Shelley diatribe, whether spoken or written sounds something like this: Blahblah..ripped vaginas….blahblah..human slavery…blahblah..don’t watch porn…blahblah..God loves you…Blahblah Ron I never knew your cock would be worth every last Pink Cross dollar I spent on it…blahblahblah. Yeah, I embellished a little at the end there, but at least I’m man enought to admit when I’m straight-up lying.
This April chick obviously has a good brain on her. Too bad she’s so weak and naive she hangs on every word spouted by that psychotic dumbass, Lubben.
@Fartz – It’s easier to blame one’s failed marriage on porn than to face the real problems that two human beings in any relationship face, or to face one’s own issues. Anyone who thinks that banning pornography is going to solve their own problems has a REALLY BIG problem they refuse to address. If your spouse turns to porn instead of having sex with you, the problem is between the two of you — porn didn’t cause your problems.
Shelley’s pattern is to have manic and depressive phases — during her “down” phases, her disciples speak for her. Then Shelley’s mania builds to the point where it can no longer be repressed, and we get another eruption. Reportedly, she has also learned how to induce these phases so that she can have enough manic courage to do pre-scheduled public appearances. But after a little while, she crashes again and goes into hibernation.
It’s not IQ that Shelley lacks, it’s the willingness to put in the time and do the work (she still brags about how “smart” she was that she was able to cheat her way through high school), combined with the inability to focus. She just collects facts, makes screen-grabs, prints them out and stuffs them in a binder. No methodology. No organization. No system. That’s why her speech at Cambridge was just a rant; nothing more than a catalog of random neural firings from her fractured mind.
Lots of times once a woman lands a husband they let themselves go and don’t keep their figure any more. They turn into a whale.
Husbands do the same thing when they get married and either get fat or develop a beer belly. Perhaps some of the folks claiming porn ruined their marriage need to look in the mirror.
Re Shelley: it does appear she likes to make sound bytes and doesn’t have any real meat and potatoes to her discussions once they get going. She throws out random shocking facts and just runs with it.
Remind me not to get married Karmafan.