The Butthooks of Justice!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Waiting for the Inevitable...

American Gladiator harems are kinda different...

Copyright 2026 by Pat Powers

Master had told her that she must not let herself cum no matter what, but she could feel it, she was going to cum, she couldn't help it, she was just a slave...

Image source: Sexually Broken video, "Apartment 345" starring Penny Pax and Matt Williams.

Incoming!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

When It's Worth It!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Whole Face Gag

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Finger Exercise

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A Slavegirl "Tell"

Slavegirl ready for dinner.

Copyright 2026 by Pat Powers

You KNOW you've hit the spot with the vibe wand when your sub's toes curl so hard her feet look like they were drawn by an AI art program!

Image source: Kink.com video 45177, "Penny Pax: Blue-Eyed Redhead Damsel Tormented in Strict Bondage" starring Penny Pax and The Pope.

How Feminist Censorship Success Created Its Own Failure

Scenes like this are now confined to porn, which is why porn is so wonderful.

Image source: Kink.com video 105438, "Fresh Meat: Haley Spades" starring Haley Spades with a special appearance by The Pope's foot!

When I described Amathea’s torture scene in my review of Barbarian Queen I said that Queen Amathea subdued the torturer by grabbing his cock with her fantastically well-developed pussy muscles which were probably the result of a brutally intense kegel regimen, probably part of that whole Amazon combat training thing. And I was wrong about that, but I totally forgive myself.

Because I wasn’t aware at the time that I had based my review on a censored version of Barbarian Queen. Turns out there were a bunch of scenes deleted from the movie at the behest of various nation’s film boards. I wasn’t all that motivated to pay any money to see the deleted scenes, but I was able to find vidcaps of the deleted scenes by searching for them, and I hit gold when I found the Movie Censorship site, which provides info on images censored from movies. You can see the deleted scenes right here on the Movie Censorship site, if you are over 18. The site included vidcaps from the censored scenes, like the ones below:

Vidcap of a deleted scene from "Barbarian Queen" that clearly shows her crushing the torturer/rapist between her powerful Amazonian thighs. No wonder it had to be deleted. Well not the whole scene, we still see him raping her from behind, though her legs are not wrapped around him in that shot. So it was probably the leg wrap thing. Weird. Image courtesy of Movie Censorship.com.

You can clearly see what’s happening in these censored scenes via the vidcaps. Amathea is clutching the torturer to her with her legs and squeezing the breath out of him, which makes one hell of a lot more sense than the whole Amazon pussy grab thing. (To be honest, I still like my pussy grab theory, it’s completely in keeping with the over-the-top nature of 80s sword and sorcery movies: “Barbarian Queen: Even her vagina was a weapon!”)

But... why was Barbarian Queen censored? The censored images are not much different from the images that were actually used in the movie.

To answer that question we have to get into what was going on in the early 80s, asking the question, why did these movies happen? Why were Deathstalker and Barbarian Queen so popular? Hell, why were the Gor novels so popular? They had sales in the MILLIONS! Was there a big BDSM breakout back then?

My theory is this: feminism happened. It happened back in the 1970s. And there was a reaction to feminism that manifested itself in the culture in the 80s in the form of the Gor novels and sword and sorcery movies like Deathstalker and Barbarian Queen and then Fifty Shades of Gray just plain blew the lid off everything.

Now, I’m not saying that anti-feminist ideologues in the early 80s ginned up intellectual responses to feminist initiatives in the late 70s. It may have happened, but it’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about a natural psychological response called reaction formation. Also known as the boomerang effect. It’s a known psychological phenomenon. You didn’t have to be an ideologue to experience it. You just had to know things were changing in ways you don’t like and respond naturally to those things. You didn’t even have to have a clear idea of what those changes were, or even that what you were doing was a response to them. It’s very much a vibes thing.

A visual representation of a forbidden vibe!

Image source: Kink.com porn video 24100 "The Model: Jessie Rogers Gets Taken By Her Biggest Fan!" starring Jessie Rogers's face and Mr. Pete's cock.

Even so the feminist successes in the 70s were well known in the culture. Many of their successes were generally wholesome and good for America. Title IX was passed in 1972, prohibiting gender discrimination in education. It was overall a very good and much needed piece of legislation (though it probably contributed to reaction formation). Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, and gave women reproductive freedom of choice, a very good thing. (Granted many social conservatives didn’t feel that way. This wasn’t reaction formation, however, as there was a long-standing religiously based opposition to it).

In 1974 there was the equal credit opportunity act, giving women the right to obtain credit on their own, a matter of simple justice, really. And there was 1978’s Pregnancy Discrimination Act, banning workplace discrimination against pregnant women, once again, a matter of simple justice.

That’s why I’m not against feminism generally. Feminists have done a lot of good things, not just for women, but for society generally. But I understand why some people feel diminished by feminist successes. It’s a phenomenon called privilege loss, where loss of privilege over others feels like a loss of personal autonomy and diminished agency, even though what’s diminished is strictly their power over others. They feel victimized, because they are no longer allowed to victimize others.

It’s not a privilege you are entitled to, it’s more the way managers felt when Covid sent their employees home and they couldn’t strut around and boss them personally any more.

So even legitimate feminist successes in fighting sexism could be driving these feelings of privilege loss. But of course, some feminists did not stop there. Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin started working with traditional prudish conservatives to censor porn, but they came late to the game, and were never really successful in the US. But their attempts to censor (basically, eliminate) porn probably triggered a sense of privilege loss among many men, or at least, privilege endangerment.

But back in 1975, British feminist film theorist Laura Mulvey really set things on fire when she coined the phrase “The Male Gaze.” She didn’t come up with this out of nowhere. She built on the work of earlier film theorists who described the male gaze as presented in cinema as something that transformed women into passive objects presented for the male gaze, which possesses them somehow by looking at them. (I am not making this up! Link.)

Mulvey’s coinage of “the male gaze” had Rule of Cool riz going for it big time and her essay really took off in feminist circles. It was absolutely irresistible to feminists: a theory that let feminist blame men for just looking at them! Whoa!

This is definitely the sort of thing that would have the boomerang effect going big time. When it started out it was mostly a film theorist thing and didn’t create much stir outside feminist academic because who gives a crap about academic film theorists? But Mulvey’s essay blew it up and the theory leaked over into general feminism and of COURSE the male gaze went from the camera and the big screen to real life. And suddenly you were oppressing women just by looking at them with your big, bad, sexist, patriarchal eyeballs.

Now this is the sort of stuff that REALLY gets the boomerang effect going, because men LOVE to look at women. We find them incredibly attractive, sexually and aesthetically. The existence of the porn industry is a testament to the deep enjoyment men get out of looking at women. And unlike the feminists, I don’t think it’s a cultural thing. I think enjoying the sight of women is baked right into men’s Y chromosomes. From the Venus of Willendorf to Kim Kardashian on the cover of Paper magazine, men have always looked at women and said, “Whoa!” Granted, the nature of the sights that provoked the “Whoas” over time have changed (check out Renoir’s extra-curvy babes from the 1800s) but the phenomenon holds true no matter what the beauty ideals are in any given culture or time. The sight of a woman being beautiful, however that works, conscious or not, gives man a solid hit of dopamine. And it feels so good.

“The Male Gaze” changes the innocent pleasure of looking at a beautiful woman and enjoying the living hell out of her beauty into a brutal act of domination.

(I had no idea I had dominated so many images on the Internet. I thought I was just digging on hot women who had no idea I existed, as I was basically looking at images on a screen. I guess I was just luring these images of women into being the passive objects of my desire through my masculine power. Call me a Master baiter!)

Of course you KNOW the boomerang effect on something like this would be HUGE, but it hasn’t been as huge as it would have if the mainstream media picked up on the Male Gaze ideology. I looked for mainstream media references to the male gaze, doing Google searches for magazine articles, blog posts, Youtube videos and TV shows that dealt with it, and it was almost all in academic, or quasi-academic media. Where it was not noticed by most people. But it was noticed and used by enough feminist bloggers and others (you don’t have to be feminist to think a Rule of Cool term like “The Male Gaze” will bring eyeballs to your blog/podcast/Youtube videos) to get those “loss of male privilege” vibes going. And I believe that happened, in conjunction with all the other feminist successes that also sparked feelings of loss of personal choice and expression that were based on male privilege.

So we have that happening. Meanwhile, something completely different was happening with the Gor novels. (I’m going to put this baldly, because I explained the phenomenon at length right here.) Traditional romance publisher were having booming sales but a lot of readers were craving spicier stuff. So they set up some imprints (basically, books published by the trad publisher but in a different subgenre from most of the books) for spicier stories and they sold quite well.

But the traditional publishers (mostly male, mostly patriarchal, mostly fat and stupid) did not serve the desires of bodice-ripper fans well at all. Spicier rape scenes just weren’t on their horizons.

Women SF fans knew of the Gor novels, and a number of them were also bodice ripper fans. And when they read the Gor novels they realized that the Gor novels were MUCH spicier than any of the trad publishers’ stories. Word got around. In the 70s this cranked Gor novel sales into the millions. (Best reports online are six to twelve million dollars, which is beyond gangbusters by SF publishing standards, or really, by ANY publisher’s standards.)

But except for DAW, most trad SF publishers hated sexy stories of any kind and most especially maledom/femsub stories like the Gor novels. And so they let DAW have the market, until the 2000s when feminists who were influential in the publishing industry (and they very much were influential) were able to pressure DAW into dropping Norman from their author list. And they blackballed Norman among SF publishers generally so he couldn’t get traditionally published in the US, even though his books continued to sell very well in foreign countries.

This was a successful act of censorship and it worked because nobody gave a flying fuck about the (mostly female, according to DAW) readers who made the Gor novels successful.

No videos, movies, TV shows or books can be allowed to get people thinking about this sort of thing, say the prudo-feminists. So of course normal people, including many normal feminists, are FASCINATED.

Image source: Kink.com porn video 44607 "Anal Alimony" starring Penny Pax (femsub) and Tommy Pistol (maledom). 

Feminist Censorship Timeline

OK, now that we have all the background put together, let’s just see if we can describe what happened in a direct timeline:

1970s: Feminism, which had been brewing since the 1960s achieved numerous legislative victories in the 1970s, as well as getting some culture wars going, most notably for our purposes, that whole male gaze thing, but there were also all the assaults on male sexuality, always framed as attacks on sexism. If you didn’t toe the line you got called a sexist pig.

1980s: In the meantime, the fat, stupid traditional romance publishers (almost all were run by men) were losing readers because in the aftermath of the sexual revolution they wanted “spicier” (i.e., more explicit) romances. They were also publishing some of the precursors of bodice rippers, but there was no established line of bodice rippers. It was very much a catch-as catch-can business for bodice ripper fans. And when the Gor novels came along with their stories of women captured and chained and raped and forced to prance around naked and leashed, bodice ripper fans made a student-body left and the Gor novels became million-sellers.

Meanwhile Deathstalker was another huge success for the sword and sorcery genre. It had a tiny Roger Corman budget of less than half a million dollars, and made $12 million worldwide at the box office. Considering that the movie got little or no marketing from chintzy Corman, it was an even bigger success than the original Conan, and like the Conan movie, it had a lot of success in video sales and rentals and later, in DVD sales and rentals. And it just happened to be arguably the most Gorean of all the 80 sword and sandal movies.

1990s: The sword and sorcery movie’s bloomed in the 80s and waned in the 90s, to be replaced by an endless parade of kickass action girls/women, 120 pound women who routinely beat up wave after wave of 200 pound male thugs. It seemed as if the feminists had achieved their final, full victory over the forces of maledom/femsub theme enjoyers (as almost nobody calls them) in the movies and in book publishing. The Gor novels, banned. Bodice rippers, sexually censored by romance publishers. Sword and sorcery movies, rare. Kickass action girls taking over the leads in all the movies and TV shows.

But of course the sexual feelings that made bodice rippers and Gor novels and attractive to so many women, and sexy, sexy sword and sorcery movies attractive to men, were still there, just very underserved. So where were the maledom/femsub fans going?

The answer became clear in around 2009. It boomeranged. It boomeranged HARD. How hard? Fifty Shades of Hard. More on that in another post.

Marketing Math

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Wrong Turn at the Palace of Wisdom

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Try A Little Tenderness

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Dominance and Submission Done Right

Penny Pax was a star on Kink.com because she is a gorgeous redhead who really knows how to hike up the dominance and submission energy in a scene. 

Image source: Kink.com video 36217, "Whipped Ass Halloween Feature Presentation: Le Dragon Rouge Part 2" starring Penny Pax (shoe licking) and Mona Wales (wearing shoes).

No joke on this one, just admiring a really great image of sexual dominance and submission from Kink. Everything works, starting with Penny's extremely submissive pose to Mona's casual dominance to the way the setup is designed to maximize their size difference. (I.e. Mona is atop a set of stairs in a chair, sitting upright while Penny is kneeling on the floor, her whole pose expressing submission. And there is a real size difference between them, Penny is in spinner territory at 5'0" tall and Mona is tall at 5'9.") 

In addition, of course, Penny is taking advantage that she's on a set of stairs to hike one leg up, a very natural-looking pose that gives the viewers a nice view of her pussy and ass. And having her pussy just hanging out there in clear view makes her look very vulnerable, which works very well with the general submissiveness of her pose.

This is one of those pictures that just stands out above the others. As I noted in my post on The Nirvana Look, there is a huge difference between an image that hits the nail on the head and one that just approximates it. And this image hits the nail on the head.

Later in the video, Penny uses the same leg-up position for more practical purposes, sccompanied by some fine acting, as usual.

Moment of Discovery

And here's a photo of Penny Pax at the EXACT moment the Mistress went right past the G-spot and found her H-spot!

Image source: Kink.com video 42344, "Lesbian Femdom Role Switch Leaves Both Women Begging for More" starring Penny Pax (pictured) and Carissa Montgomery (not pictured).

Such A Deal!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

When you're the main course in the picnic at hanging rock

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Be careful what you wish for...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Modern Lesbian Cosmetics

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sexual Bondage Comedy Duo!

The Bad Lesbian Comedy Bondage duo of Penny Pax (left) and Chanel Preston was a little ahead of its time. The humor was perhaps a bit too advanced for most audiences, but their appearances were still very well attended for some reason or other.

Image source: Kink.com shoot 35488, "TSA Takedown Part 2: Patriots."

Mad Science Marches On!

In their search for greater profits, the health insurance companies started covering visits to doctors with degrees from Mad Science University. The results were... predictable.

Image source: Kink.com shoot 17977, "Peeping Tom Gets Revenge On Busty Blonde" starring Penny Pax and Mark Davis.

Why Mainstream Media Never Gets Sex Scenes Right

Closeup from Madison's ride that hopefully won't get Google cranked up, unlike the gif just below that this image is from.

This is porn. You'll be tested on this later! This is bondage porn, not vanilla porn, which is also covered in this post. You can if you like imagine that Madison Scott's wrists are not tied to her ankles and she isn't ballgagged. If that's what works for you.

Source: Kink.com video 9799, "Taboo Teaching" featuring Madison Scott and Mark Davis.

If you watch mainstream media that deals with sex, porn and the sex industry you will soon conclude that sex is a Very Bad Thing that is Definitely NO Fun that no sane person would participate in. 

Now if you are a healthy, sane, normal adult human being who has actually had sex, your experience of sex was probably that it felt WONDERFUL, maybe the best feeling EVER. Pure pleasure, the very apotheosis if you will, of pleasure. So why does mainstream media always portray it as a bad experience? There are several reasons.

This is Holly Hunter tied to a bed in an upper spreadeagle, stark naked from the TNT television series "Saving Grace." It's one of the, if not the, raunchiest bondage images I've ever seen on broadcast cable TV. Hunter is seen like this for ten or fifteen minutes of the show. (Which is also very rare, most of the time when mainstream media shows partial nudity, it's only for a brief second or two.) It's the old "got tied up for consensual sex and then the partner leaves them tied up" scenario. Natually she's tied face down. This is BY FAR one of the raunchest mainstream media sexual images. Most are far tamer and far shorter. 

1) Mainstream media is CENSORED and CANNOT portray sex accurately. They cannot show naked human beings having sex with their genitals. While there are all sorts of reasons for censoring explicit sexual imagery, some more valid than others, the undeniable fact is that censorship prevents viewers from seeing how sex is done, preventing viewers from assessing it. 

It's actually a moot point: everyone who can have an orgasm knows what orgasms feel like, and everyone who has had sex with someone else knows what sexual intercourse feels like. Pictures of people having sex won't change their opinions either way. But if you cut out the explicit parts, you don't really show why people enjoy sex so much. The effect is that happy sexual relationships are portrayed most often without sexual imagery. It's just the nature of the beast.

A scene from "Spartacus: Gods of the Arena" shows a slavegirl being raped by Baritatus, in a television series that aired on the Starz premium channel. She's naked and collared. One of the advantages of slave girls in sex scenes is that the drama is already present: she is a slave, she has no choice about the sex, it's rape by nature. So any sex scene involving a slave is dramatic by nature, even if all that happens is apparently consensual sex.

2) Most movies (and TV shows) generally involve some conflict or other. The dramatic elements often show up in the sex scenes and generally makes them unhappy in one way or another. It's not a matter of intentionally trying to make sex look worse than it is, but overall, it has that effect. This tends to be more the case with movies and TV shows where sex is central to the plot. A movie or show about people who have a wonderful relationship with lots of happy and fulfilling sex and that's about it would be derided as porn. (It's the same reason science fiction movies and TV shows tend to be about dystopias instead of utopias. Utopias where everyone is happy and living their best lives don't tend to produce drama.) Hence, sexual relastionships that make people unhappy tend to be far more common in mainstream media than they are in real life. Once again, it's the nature of the beast, not the result of intentional censorship.

Many speculate that "Game of Thrones" would be classified as porn under Mike Lee's proposed censorship bill. Here's Emilia Clarke and Jason Momoa porning things up. Of course, most of the scenes in Game of Thrones do not involve sex and/or nudity, but censors are a VERY inclusive bunch when it comes to defining porn. 

3) Culture War Issues. Sex in media is not the cental issue of the culture wars, but it is an issue. And for the people who want to censor, it is a central issue, an issue for which they have great passion. I would not be surprised to learn that some portion, maybe a very large portion, of the people who are the most strident about censorship, like that stupid little weasel Mike Lee (Senator from Utah, Crazy) have a fetish for preventing other people from having orgasms on their own terms. He has recently proposed legislation to censor all porn, basically, all images of naked men and women, having sex of otherwise. He does this kind of shit regularly, one might also say, compulsively, without success. But the bill he's put forth is straight out of the Project 2025 playbook, so things might go differently this time. I hope not. 

My point is that if you haven't heard much about this it's not surprising. The general public isn't at all interested in censoring sexy stuff right now, they're a LOT more concerned with not being rendered homeless or unemployed by the economic antics of the current dementia-addled semi-octogenerian in chief. As they should be. But these censorship crazies never stop, because they're compelled to attempt censorship for their own freaky reasons.

Religion rears its ugly head, along with sex. NOW we're getting kinky! Image source: kink.com video 22717, "The Sins of Sister Summers" starring Angell Summers.

3) The Religion Grift. But there's more to it than weird sexual obsession with other people's orgasms. There are also cultural forces at work for censorship in America, primarily religious in nature. Catholics in league with Protestant evangelicals were responsible for the Hayes censorship era that hamstrung movies and TV shows for decades, and they still form the bulk of the cultural pressure for censorship, now with extra added Mormons as well. (Mike Lee is a Mormon, and they are censorious bunch.)

Mormons are also avid consumers of porn, like many evangelicals and Catholics. Three different religions, but they have censoriousness in common. And they all claim that they're doing it for good of others, most especially for (let's say it all together now!) "the chilllldreeeen."

This is, of course, bullshit. Not because many religious types aren't actually concerned with preventing children from being exposed to explicit sexual images, I'm sure many are, especially among the base. It's bullshit because the censorship never stops with the children, most especially if it's unopposed. Protecting the children is a wedge issue. If censorship succeeds "for the children" the goalposts are immediately moved to protecting the adults.

Religions want to censor sexual materials because most of them, at one time or another, were in a position to control the sexuality of their followers. In the case of Catholics and Protestants, you had to go through the church to get married, and that gave the church a powerful gripping hand on the libidos of young men. Especially since the church and the families REALLY pushed chastity on girls and women.

Now there were good practical reasons for this. From the Bronze Age to medieval times, a woman who had a child without having a mate was in for a hard time, in most societies.  And safe, effective birth control did not exist. So chastity was important for young women, because men wanted to be sure that the children they were providing for were in fact their own children. At the same time, a man who could impregnate a woman without having to help care for her and her children is a reproductive winner. More offspring, no costs. Which is why the general culture tends to make chastity much less important for men.

Nuns have always been a bit problematical in the Catholic faith: shouldn't they be out there having babies to further God's glory?

Image source: "Filth and Sin" kink.com video 34016 featuring Ana Foxxx and Chanel Preston.

A religion that pushes chastity on young women is therefore a good thing from the viewpoint of the parents who want their daughtrs to succeed in Bronze Age and medieval societies. It's also a good thing for the state. The state's rulerse generally wants their population to increase so they'll have more agricultural workers and soldiers to make them more wealthy and powerful. They also want their population healthy, because you get more work ($$) out of healthy subjects. They also want their population to be kinda dumb and very prone to be submissive to authority. All things the Catholics, Protestant evangelicals and the Mormons are big on. (Mormons are a bit late to the party compared to the other two religions, but they do share those traits.)

All of the religions cited are against porn, but their opposition to porn is just an effect of their desire to control the sexuality of the men and women in their charge. They want to prevent young people from getting sexually aroused and doing sexual things that the church authorities can't control. Curtailing access to porn is just a means to that end. It made sense in a time with no safe, effective birth control and harsh Bronze Age morals about women who had sex outside of marriage (thanks in large part to the church).

 The state finds the religious focus on celibacy outside marriage very useful, since it keeps the population growing and ensures that the men who become soldiers will be healthy, ignorant and conditioned to responding unthinkingly to authority. These are grifts that have been around for so long that they are not recognized as grifts. Now THAT'S a successful grift!

 With the advent of safe, reliable birth control, however, the problem of out of wedlock childbirths is greatly reduced. Not entirely eliminated, of course, because not all young women or men have sense enough to use contraception. Plus, these religions are fighting with all their might against contraception and abortion, creating all sorts of horrifying medical stories about women who need abortion for medical reasons and can't get them in red states. The religions claim that their reason is that all life is sacred to them, even as yet unborn life.

But their real reason for fighting abortion are revealed by the fact that these religions are fighting against women's access to contraception, all forms of contraception. No pill, no IUD, no condoms, no nothing. The religious justification of this is that whether or not a woman gets pregnant as a result of having sex is, and should be, a function of God's will. But the real reason is that the religious leaders want to be the ones whose will is enforced, and their will is always that the women in their charge should be pregnant at every opportunity, which creates more followers. That's all there is to it. Every religion wants more followers because that means more money and power for the leaders. All their religious claims are simple grift. (They're against porn for the same reason: men who are masturbating to porn are not impregnating women. It is possible to do both, as I personally can attest, but that's not a major consideration for religious censors.) 

When the state gets involved, autonomy about sexual choices vanishes.

Image source: Kristy Lynn and James Deen in kink.com shoot 21250, "Bribing an Officer."

4) The State Grift -- The state generally has the same goals as the religions with regard to their population: they want more citizens for more money and more power. They also want their citizens conditioned to obey authority unthinkingly and conditioned to create lots of new citizens. Catholics, Protestant evangelicals and Mormons all deliver on these demands, so the state and religions generally are tight with one another on sexual issues.

If you don't believe that the state and the major religions are in line on sexual issues, just look at the current makeup of the Supreme Court: six out of the nine current Supreme Court justices are conservative Catholics in a nation with a population that is only 20 percent Catholic. The justices were hand-picked by conservative legislators to take down Roe v. Wade, and they did it.

I should add that conservative politicians are the ones who work most substantially for religions. The left has been much less cooperative, as many Americans are either not religious at all, or are not deeply religious. They tend to vote more liberal, though they can be censorious over some issues, rarely sexual issues however. I might add that there are many Catholics who are not deeply religious often cross Catholic teachings on sexual issues, particularly contraception.

Fortunately there are forces opposing these forces. Big, powerful forces, too. 

"Look, I'm worried about keeping my family housed and fed. I could give a rat's ass about someone watching this, OK?"

From kink.com video 36433, "Fear Play: Cherie DeVille's Roleplay Fantasy" featuring Cherie Deville and Tommy Pistol.

1) Bigger Issues To Deal With -- As mentioned before people have much bigger problems on their plates than porn. The issues that need to be dealt with are life-endangering in some cases, and life-ruining in others. It's going to be very hard to convince people who are worried about high-priced groceries and rent and mortgages to get all worked up about preventing other people from seeing images of people having sex. It's not exactly central to most people's lives right now.

 There's been no groundswell over Lee's call for censorship. It has only gotten responses from some leaders among the Usual Suspect religions and conservative pols mentioned above. The people have other fish to fry. 

2) Been There, Seen That -- Most of what I've talked about is familiar to most people who've followed these arguments. But here's something new: people are not prone to get roused over the dangers of porn any more because they KNOW porn. Practically all the adults in the US have had the opportunity to watch hardcore porn of whatever they like, for decades. It isn't the dark, hidden, secret sexy thing it once was, and it hasn't been since the 1970s when home video players made it possible to watch porn in complete privacy, huzzah! It's been normalized, as some like to say.

Well the political conservatives and the censorious religions have not been going huzzah! But there was nothing they could do, it was the 70s and only their core groups were interested in censoring adult videos. There were attempts at censorship but they got nowhere. And now that most Americans have had four decades to experience porn, most of them have come to the reasonable conclusion that it's just not a big deal. It's good for keeping the old libido at manageable levels when there's no prospect of managing it with a partner and that's about it. Some people have claimed to be addicted to porn, but it's hard to know to what extent it's a real problem because of course the censorious types are all over that shit. But overall, it seems to be a manageable problem.

My suspicion is that the public's familiarity with porn videos have removed the bogeyman factor from porn. Back before the 70s porn was this big dark hidden thing that could be everything the censorious types said it was. Now the censorious types are decrying the dangers of porn to people who are outside their core who know the "dangers" of porn for the bullshit that it is.

It makes for a very difficult time for censors, which is why I don't think there will be any popular groundswell for censoring porn. But that doesn't mean porn censorship won't happen. The political conservatives and the religious types don't understand that the sexuality control game is over as far as the majority of Americans are concerned. They've still got their core constituencies buffaloed, and they hope to get the rest of us under control, by re-instituting censorship of all pornography, making it dark and mysterious once again, and most of all getting a gripping hand on everyone's libido again.

This will not exactly be a great campaign issue for anyone except a few politicians in deeply conservative areas. That may not matter, because Trump, the Heritage Foundation and others are working very hard to end democracy in the US. If they succeed, voters won't matter. If the President can deport people, even citizens and legal residents, with an executive order, and so far he can, he can probably jail pornographers and and even porn viewers with an executive order.

The courts may have opinions on such orders, but the Trump administration has already demonstrated a willingness to ignore the decisions of the Supreme Court and all the other courts, and if they continue to get away with that courts will no longer have any power at all. If things get worse (and they're certainly headed in the general direction of Worse) there will probably be other Executive Orders that will put Executive Orders about porn in perspective.

I don't think porn is politically exciting enough to get banned for its own sake. I think the most likely avenue for a porn ban would be if the conservatives who run our government want to use it for a distraction to keep people's attention diverted while they do much more dangerous stuff, like end habeus corpus or declare martial law or end elections, much more important goals for them.

Although I don't think  most people would support an executive order banning porn, I do think about 27 percent of the electorate will, if Trump issues one and especially if he starts using his bully pulpit to encourage his people to support banning porn. The Trumpers will support anything Trump says, no matter how ridiculous or even how harmful to them personally it might be. They've proven it time and again. And you can be sure that if the Trumpers get wound up about banning all porn, they will jump on the bandwagon with everything they've got, though that's not nearly as much as it once was.

A porn ban might succeed if used as cover for more dastardly deeds, sliding through as more energy is spent battling more pressing issues. This is very much in keeping with Project 2025 strategy. It's still a very chancy thing, but it could happen.

Now as far as the porn ban and mainstream media getting porn right, obviously if a ban succeeds, that won't happen. Not even porn will get porn right if it's banned! If porn isn't banned, the Usual Suspects will work hard to "other" porn and make it socially unacceptable. This is highly unlikely to work, because the continued availability of porn and its natural attractiveness to people will continue to normalize it, making it even less likely to get banned.

I think the real problem with mainstream media getting sex scenes right will continue to be the first two reasons I listed: the censorship of mainstream media, because explicit images of naked people having sex are unlikely to be shown in media open to people of all ages. It's not a problem, just the nature of the media. And mainstream media will likely tend to continue to interject drama into sex scenes because peaceful, happy sexual relationships aren't all that dramatic.

That's a blowjob, alrighty. Chloe Sevigny in "The Brown Bunny."

Where I see long-term effects will be in movies. As porn normalizes sex scenes, movies will probably allow more and more explicit scenes. It's already happened to a certain extent: Chloe Sevigny gave an explicit blowjob with a cock seen entering her mouth in "The Brown Bunny" and Sharon Stone famously flashed her pussy in "Basic Instinct" and they both continue to get roles in movies, so not much in the way of blowback for them.

Elizabeth Berkley drop-kicks a rapist in Showgirls, with exposed pussy. Now THAT'S a drop-kick!

However, there is one obvious counterexample, and that's Elizabeth Berkley's appearance in "Showgirls." For the story of a Las Vegas nude dancer/stripper/entertainer Elizabeth went fully naked in several scenes, and the film bombed hard. Elizabeth Berkley got a share of the blame, but the director got most of the blame. (Interestingly, "Showgirls" has since developed a cult following. I've watched Showgirls, and it didn't seem teriffically awful to me. My suspicion is that Showgirls pushed the nudity and the sexuality harder than the mainstream critics were ready for, hence the strange vigor of the bad reviews.) Fortunately Berkley's career has gotten back on track since, though not as readily as Sevigny and Stone did.

Sevigny, Stone and Berkley would probably all have been blackballed in Hollywood if their scenes had occurred 40 or 50 years ago. But since the 70s, things have been different. And unless porn gets banned, things will continue to get different. The old Bronze Age grifts of religion and the state have been destroyed by modern contraception and video technology, and the sociopaths who like controlling others will have to use other grifts or lose power. In a few decades maybe we'll develop dramatic conventions that make explicit sex scenes perfectly acceptable in some movies and TV shows. We shall see.

Perhaps one day mainstream reviewers will be able to look at an image like this and see that, in addition to being kinky and sexy, it is beautiful. Look at the way Penny Pax's toes are curling. Look at Carissa Montgomery dommeing it up! The light, the color, the composition of the shot. Beauitiful!

Penny Pax (bottom) and Carissa Montgomery (top) in Kink.com shoot 42344.