Am I to be the only ex-porn performer who doesn’t denounce the industry because I was unloved, unwanted, unaware, or an addict? I was twenty-four and knew the implications and chose the work anyway. The only time I even tried on ‘I regret getting into porn’ language, I repulsed myself. And I only thought it because I’d been used by a bugger who isn’t even part of the industry. Mae West, this generation could use your strength, candor and wit!
My comment was too long for the Huffington Post, so I’ll post it here. You’ll find the short one, but I think the long one’s better.
I will always do my best to be kind to ex-performers, but this article by Jennifer Ketcham seems so beneath her. What an incredible oversimplification of extremely complex issues. A fluff piece.
Why Aren’t More Porn Performers for Measure B?, by Jennifer Ketcham
My response:
“I’m an ex-performer who no longer makes money off of my product. I do not produce product and I am not ashamed of my past in any way whatsoever. I constantly battle small-minded people–even people very close to me–for the right to feel the way I honestly feel about myself and my life choices. I’m very disappointed by this oversimplification of what is a very complicated issue, so I humbly submit myself as one of the “thousands of men and women who were once performers, are now retired, and still believe that the industry is safe and self-regulated.”
This article doesn’t mention the anti-porn front AHF has posed for years, even though Michael Weinstein cared not one bit for involvement in regulating the industry through condoms in 2008. It doesn’t mention that Weinstein was willing to walk hand-in-hand with anti-porn/gay activist Shelley Lubben; willing to pay Derrick Burts, a con artist with a lengthy criminal history, to appear in ads and at speaking gigs; or that Measure B requires at the very least condoms. Also included are dental dams, gloves, goggles and HazMat suits. [Update: Michael Weinstein didn't care in 2004. Article here.]
It doesn’t mention AIM’s success rate or the fact that AHF’s constant attacks and legal suits destroyed the industry’s clinic. It doesn’t mention which groups of performers prefer condoms and why, or who those very vocal performers have been. And what of gay vs. straight industries? This entire issue has been reduced to yet another motherly projection at defining a fascinating group of people–some of whom legitimately would rather use condoms. I preferred condoms as a performer, but between a mandate and choice, I still would have preferred choice.
Projecting what an entire group of people want based upon gut instinct and what must surely be in their “innermost self” is childish and a lot of projection and speculation without fact. There’s no research here. I understand through your book and writings that you regret having gotten into porn–something you are entitled to for your own very personal reasons–but your issues are your own. You can’t know someone else’s life until you’ve walked in their shoes. More probable is the fact that many performers want the right to choose rather than be mandated out of business by an anti-pornographer. Leaving the state to work is far more dangerous and AHF was never willing to have civil conversations with industry members to come to a clear and considerate solution. Dismissing the performer voices that came forward against the mandate and the First Amendment implications is ridiculous. It looks more like your patting your own back for having an “in” at HuffPo than you have any real consideration for these people. That or you procrastinated on a deadline. Measure B is not a wise choice for a five-paragraph article on such a high profile site. There is nothing of the economic implications in this piece, either.
I find it very hard to believe that someone as intelligent and capable as Kayden Kross is simply in denial about preferring to work without condoms. Also with Kylie Ireland, an industry veteran who claims that she is highly allergic to certain latex materials and prefers to work without condoms. This piece is extremely misleading. Many people choose condoms, but this mandate leaves no room for choice, and choice is what the majority prefers. Nina Hartley doesn’t want to be forced to use condoms and yet she’s always maintained that internal “cream pies” are dangerous.
Human psychology is so very interesting. It’s sad to see these extremely complicated and interesting people reduced to one person’s “gut” instinct about something with which they did zero research. If I lost work for choosing condoms, I lost work, the same way a mainstream starlet can lose a big part because she won’t have sex with the director. With this measure, a married webcam couple can face fines and even prison for not knowing they are required to wear condoms by law. Just because you’re morally for something doesn’t make the law right. Are we so naïve now that we just stop considering who’s behind a law, why they’re behind it and the dangerous ways with which it’s worded?
Don’t get me wrong, I cannot stand many pro-porn people who also do not care about talent (and quite a few of them are very vocally anti-condom), but anyone who has followed this knows it’s about more than just condoms. This is a dull, painful read from someone I thought would have an extremely interesting and nuanced perspective.
Ex-Porn Star, Monogamous Wife, Mother, Humanist -
Julie Meadows”
You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!