p2pnet - rss feed: Porn maker’s Sex at Yale promo
p2pnet news | Movies:- Vivid Entertainment, purveyor of online (and other) porn, bills itself as “the world’s leading adult film company” and now, using the ‘erect’ word, company Steven Hirsch co-founder is attacking Google and Yahoo.
Both coorporations need to, “erect stronger barriers to keep children from accessing adult material,” says the maker of significant quantities of adult material.
“This is not about First Amendment rights, it is about protecting children,” he states in a puff piece.
Riiiiight.
And about generating scads of free mainstream media exposure.
Hirsch’s observations come as part of a promotion for the dirty movie company’s Sex Week at Yale (SWAY), slated to kick off tomorrow.
“SWAY is dedicated to the exploration of love, sex, intimacy, and relationships at Yale University,” it promises earnestly.
Riiiiight.
And to generating scads of free mainstream media exposure.
“The organization’s mission is to get beyond the awkwardness, discomfort and taboo of conventional sex education programs and to get students talking about sex openly and realistically,” it says, going on:
“As STIs, unplanned pregnancies, unrewarding relationships, and abuse remain a very real problem for college students, SWAY’s mission is infused with urgency to get students thinking honestly about their sexual health.”
Infused with urgency. Riiiiight.
And with generating scads of free mainstream media exposure.
Dain Lewis, director of Sex Week at Yale, set the scene last year by saying Yalies are clueless about sex, also implying Arizona State students aren’t.
Said a Vivid ’study’, “Although 78 percent of students polled said they personally have been sexually active, in the survey they estimated that only 68 percent of all Yalies would answer the same. Lewis attributed this underestimation to Yale’s reputation as an institution focused on higher learning, not on what he called the typical ‘college good life’.”
However Yale, Lewis opined, “is not an Arizona State”. Rather, Yale is known for the, “intellectual activities of its students, not the sexual ones”.
Anyhow, why shouldn’t Vivid invade Yale to blatantly sell sex?
And at least the company is paying for it, unlike the RIAA and MPAA which now routinely foist phony corporate ‘educational’ materials on junior and senior schools, using staff as delivery vehicles, with taxpayers picking up the tab
Speaking of the RIAA, Hirsch is suing YouTube clone PornTube for copyright infringement, also promising to go after “all the free sites”.
It’s demanding damages of $150,000 per infringed work.
Also See:
puff piece - Vivid Entertainment Head Steven Hirsch Calls on Yahoo and Google to Take Steps to Keep Explicit Material from KidsFebruary 15, 2007
copyright infringement - Porn company sues porn company, December 12, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
People worry too much about kids and porn. Maybe if it wasn’t such a taboo subject, they wouldn’t be so curious about it. I can’t site one at the moment, but there have been studies in the past that showed that exposure to sexual material and even sexual activity itself isn’t inherently harmful to children. It’s only when it’s forced upon them, or when it comes with a heavy dose of guilt (courtesy of the USA’s puritan roots) that it causes real problems.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Yeah, right. That’s believable.
The USA doesn’t have Puritan roots. Puritans were part of the Church of England. Those who came to America LEFT the CofE. As well, the Puritans wanted to PURIFY the Anglican church of Roman Catholic practices, such as bishops and candles and the like. Not just Puritans, but ALL CHRISTIANS were against pornography. Get your terminology right, and stop killing words just to have a pejorative.
People can’t possibly worry enough about kids and porn when there are unscrupulous, sub-human bastards out there who want to pervert children for their own gain. But hey, you go ahead and side with those guys. Anything’s better than being a “puritan,” right?
February 15th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Ehhh…? The US does not have puritan roots??! So, the people on the Mayflower were NOT puritans? Go read a history book, will ya?
February 16th, 2008 at 12:45 am
In Europe they have nudity on daytime TV. Here in the US, people panic if a bare breast appears on TV for half a second. Over in Europe, families go to nude beaches. In the US, any parent that would dare to take a child to a nude beach would be charged with child abuse and the kid put in therapy to help them deal with the “damage” that had been done to them (this excludes nudist/naturist familes, who I’m sure the conservatives already suspect of child abuse).
We’ve got parents being arrested for taking pictures of their kids playing in the bath (although I’m sure you’ll see some sinister purpose to that). Lives can be ruined with just the accusation of child abuse because everyone just assumes that the person is guilty. People have been arrested for ACCIDENTALLY downloading mislabelled child pornography.
Here in my own state of Connecticut, a 40 year old female substitute teacher was convicted of four counts of “risk of injury to a minor” because a computer in the classroom she was assigned to teach in started showing explicit images, which she said she could figure out how to stop. The defense had the computer examined and came up with evidence that would have helped her case, but it was excluded. After the trial, the state had the computer examined by its own expert and found that some of the claims by the prosecutor were probably wrong. Upon hearing this, a judge granted her a new trial.
Frankly, I’m disgusted by the fact that anyone felt that kids accidentally seeing a few porn images was enough to send a woman to jail over. Only in America can one “injure” a child by showing them an image. Were these child then taken to a hospital to be treated for this injury? My faith in the US legal system has been “injured” by this decision, who do I file charges against?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278897,00.html
February 16th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I’m with Rekrul (I think). I have a problem with violence and any hint of perversion, but regular bare skin should be accepted as natural. Did the children of barely-clothed peoples of antiquity acquire mental disorders or feel they were “injured”??? Making a fuss about it probably causes far more harm.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
” Anything’s better than being a “puritan,” right?
Absolutely right.
ANYTHING is better than being a puritan.
If you’re not with us you’re one of them right ?
It’s either lblack or white, right ?
No shades of grey, no middle ground .. right ?
asshole
February 17th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I’m guessing Yale won’t even see a cut of the profits from this film. I wonder if they can claim some kind of copyright over the title. (come on it worked for a bunch of cultist nutjobs)
February 18th, 2008 at 3:50 am
wtf is a puritan.. o.O