That's hilarious that it's actually just mainstream porn without the sex. I can see her steepling her fingers now.

This is a great post. I've just discovered your sites, starting with cocksexual.com, and I now have a huge crush on you.

All of my sites say how much I pay my models, and what I pay them for. I pay everyone the same rate- whether they're well-known or a first-timer. Equality is important to me and I don't want anyone to feel shafted. I love getting input and ideas from models about what to shoot- and they decide who they want to fuck, and how. I have spent time getting to know plenty of my models, I know their names, and often, things about their lives and why they enjoy working in adult, and their general interests in human sexuality and sexual politics. I see that as an integral part of producing ethical porn. My models (and I don't mean "my" in an ownership sense, of course) are all human beings to me that I selected to work with because of not just their cuteness, but because I think they sounded like interesting people with a cool sense of sexual self. You just don't get that if you're purchasing random porn content shot by who-knows-who thousands of miles away. (Not that other porn models aren't whole and multidimensional people, but I value getting to know the people that work with me and appear on my sites. As do a lot of other producers, like the ones I listed at the end of the post.) One of the primary things I love about the alt/indie/amateur/queer porn genre is the focus on performers as *people* and *friends* and a *community*, not just a zip file of photos you bought for $50 from a content store online.

I came here through a link from sexisnottheenemy. I wanted to comment that I, as a male (not to speak for us all, just to clarify my gender), find stereotypes of what is/isn't feminine/masculine in the realm of pornography to be very frustrating. As a "man" I am not, despite what one may be lead to believe, interested in watching women's arseholes getting ripped apart, or groups of women being hosed down by bucketloads of fake semen, or a woman grimacing in pain or despair at the whim of some mindless, frothing-at-the-mouth Neanderthal. Nor do I want the brand of "erotica" I see promoted as "woman friendly", "romantic" and the like. It seems most porn is about brainwashing, whether it's men into suppressing their loving sexual instincts or women into suppressing their fucking sexual instincts. Put the words "sensual" into a typical porn search engine and see what you get: lesbians, "porn for women", massage, along with the usual trash tagged with any words that'll get hits. How about "cumshot": straight cumshots, gay cumshots, massive cumshots, bukkake; won't find much from the "porn for women" folk. So, men can't enjoy tender kissing and touching? And women don't like seeing/feeling/making their guys cum? And cumshots can't be sensual? Kissing can't be sexual?

And what's with this artificial dichotomy of porn for men and porn for women. Surely one of the most sexually powerful uses of porn is between couples.

I get it. "Feminism", to you, seems to mean SELLING THINGS TO WOMEN- things that arguably play on their insecurities and reinforce heterosexism and shame.

Have fun profiting off human beings whose labor conditions are unknown to you. Yeah, I'm so sad I'm not a feminist like you.

Enough. I'll leave you to your high dudgeon.

I note also that you are STILL misrepresenting me and my site. You know nothing about the sources of our content or the ethical decisions we make regarding it.

Answer me this:

Have you been inside the member's area at For The Girls recently? Or ever?

Did you even look at the tour or our FAQ before writing this piece?

If you didn't then it means you have settled down to make your case without actually doing any research.

If you did then it means you have deliberately misrepresented For The Girls in order to construct your argument.

If this piece were published in the print media I'd be chatting to my lawyers right now. Since it is, however, just a rant posted on a blog I can only come here and point out that you are publishing untruths.

Fact is, Furrygirl, you need enemies, it suits your politics. Your blog is all about "taking on the enemies of sexual sanity" and it casts you in the role of the more-alternative-than-thou saviour. In order to define yourself, you have to attack the "other". It's "us versus them" with you. You need to set up straw men so you can knock them down and then claim the high moral ground. The other day it was Amber Rhea. Now it's me. Tally ho.

Never mind the facts. Cherry pick your arguments. Argue from authority. Ignore any counter-arguments. And then later, go for the ad hominem attack.

You're an atheist but the creationists would be proud of you.

Today, I'll be playing the part of the straw man. Because of me, you won't have to actually give any serious thought to this discussion or make your case in a reasoned manner.

This isn't new behaviour. I saw it five years ago (not 2003 as I once thought) and it's why I just gave up and stopped trying to discuss anything with you. And here you pop up again making exactly the same statements as in 2005 - almost the exact wording, actually. One of the webmaster boards is still running, despite what you claim. I also still have the extremely long (and somewhat sarcastic) reply I wrote for the FW board in May 2005.

Actually, the original argument was very good for me. Your challenge made me think about what I was doing. I made some changes to how I did business. Perhaps, five years ago, I was monolithic in how I approached the whole idea of porn for women. I re-examined things.

I don't think you did any of that. This blog post shows you didn't engage with me. You have simply rehashed your old arguments and then made up a few lies to back yourself up.

Stupid thing is, we are actually on the same side. I was even considering joining your new affiliate program the other day, sending some traffic towards Cocksexual.

Ah well.

No doubt all this doesn't fit in with your idea of who I am and what I'm about. So go ahead. Hate away. Make yourself into the hero. Stand up for your rather narrow definitions of what is acceptable and continue to misrepresent me and my site. Pretend that things I may or may not have said half a decade ago still apply.

In the meantime I'll continue to run For The Girls according to my own definitions of feminism - not yours - and cater to the thousands of my members who enjoy it.

And I will also continue to network with all the other female filmmakers and webmasters who are creating their own vision, including those you named at the bottom of your post. Jayme makes vidcasts for us. Tristan, Buck and Shine Louise Houston appear in interviews on our site. We are many facets of the same idea - trying to offer a female point of view in our own way.

You are the only one who wants to exclude. You are the only one attacking.

And if your idea of sex positive activism means telling lies and ignoring the legitimate viewpoints of others, it's time people stopped listening to you.

I have never said that you, or your subscribers, are not ALLOWED to be turned on by romance porn. That's always the angle you take, as thought that's even the issue. I'm not trying to take romance porn away from you by force, but thanks for trying the "Help help I'm being oppressed!" angle again.

EVEN LEAVING ASIDE YOUR ANTI-SEXUALITY CONTENT THEMES, let's look beyond the presentation and talk product.

What the hell is so "feminist" about porn that's made under you-have-no-idea-what circumstances?

You don't make porn- you buy or license it from producers in America. You have NO idea what goes on on the set, NO idea if your models are mistreated, NO idea if they were pressured to do anything they didn't want to do, NO idea if the producer ripped off any of them or tried to talk them down on payments the day or the shoot. Do you even know how much your performers got paid? How many models on your "feminist" porn site have you personally interacted with? Without referencing your model releases, do you know the names of any of the performers on your site, just off the top of your head? Or are they just pieces of ass for you to repurpose, repackage, and resell?

How can any product call itself feminist or ethical when the working conditions under which it was made are unknown?

I have already written about the old accusations of stereotyping, "porn for women" as a genre and other stuff on my blog. A couple of examples:
http://www.msnaughty.com/blog/2008/05/13/porn-for-women-the-backlash/
http://www.msnaughty.com/blog/2006/05/27/but-what-if-stereotypes-turn-you-on/

The only true thing asserted by Furrygirl in this post about the content at FTG is that we buy existing photos and movies. That's true. We're Australian and it's very difficult and possibly illegal to make our own contet here (I discovered that after making an erotic film last year - a film that featured relatable people and fucking, Furrygirl.)

We choose content that turns us on. *Us.* The two straight women who run the site. You may be surprised to discover that we're entitled to find that sort of thing sexy, as do the thousands of women who join our site, even if you don't consider it to be feminist. Potato, po-tah-to. We don't edit out the sex but we do edit out the goatse butt shots on the guys because we don't find them sexy.

We also publish a large amount of exclusive written content that is incredibly diverse, sex positive and female friendly. Our written content has been the main focus of our site for many years.

You are entitled to your opinion about whether FTG is feminist. That's fine. But make your arguments using facts rather than rehashed misconceptions about our site from 2003.