For the past few months, porn’s most well-known studio, Vivid Entertainment has been joining forces with XCritic to conduct a comprehensive survey of porn viewers, their habits, their preferences, and their opinions about the numerous factors that define how porn is produced, for whom, and for what specific purpose. Does anyone still watch DVDs? Are MMF threesomes more popular than FFM threesomes? Would home viewers perform in an adult feature if it didn’t require sex? What if it did?
XCritic has been slowly releasing the results of the polls and some of the answers have been quite surprising.
– More than 1/3rd of respondents still watch retail DVDs over online, digitally distributed content.
– Despite the continued rise of gonzo, a feature production is still the most watched porn format.
– Although double-penetration scenes have become more commonplace over the past few years, most guys still prefer two girls and one guy in threesome scenes.
– More than half of respondents claim to be always aroused when viewing porn, meaning blood is flowing away from other areas of the body to keep an erection, possibly to the detriment of logical and critical faculties; hence: your regrettable Coke bottle “accident”.
– Most respondents believe the amalgamation of Internet and television will result in more porn viewing.
– Lindsay Lohan is the celeb most desired to be seen fucking in a sex tape, low-res cell-phone footage or not.
– The most popular porn categories were anal and girl-girl, apparently by a huge margin.
– Almost half the men responding would take a non-sexual role in an adult production, while nearly 40% would say yes to a sexual role!
– And, perhaps most surprisingly of all, more than 73% of respondents do not hide their porn viewing, with more than a third enjoying porn with a significant other.
Vivid and XCritic are continuing their polling, so keep your eyes peeled on Mr. Pink’s for more results as they roll in.
With Americans preparing to go to the polls in just a few days, there’s plenty of discussion about who to vote for, who not to vote for, and whether or not presidential candidate Roseanne Barr is even on the ballot. Angelenos, however, will have to decide on one county measure that could see thousands out of work, hundreds of companies moving out of state, and the government having far too much control over, of all things, the adult entertainment industry.
Measure B is the controversial ordinance that would, in essence, make shooting porn without condoms and other protective devices illegal, and would see offenders fined and possibly jailed. Proponents of the measure cite allegedly rampant STD and HIV infection rates among adult performers and claim the ordinance is about protecting those having sex on camera. Opponents argue that Measure B is an infringement of their constitutional right to have sex however they see fit, on camera or off; that the adult industry is aggressively self-regulated and performers are much less likely to contract an STD than someone fucking in the general populace; that, if enacted, the ordinance would see the adult industry moving out of state, causing a huge increase in unemployment rates due to lack of work for those that work in off-screen positions throughout the industry; and, according to MarketWatch, it would cost LA county “in excess of $300,000” to start the program and $1.7 million or more per year to maintain, according to a report from Los Angeles Fire Department.
You, however, might not be in LA and might not see what all the fuss is about. How convenient then that James Deen and Jessica Drake, both staunch opponents of the measure, have, under Kimberly Kane’s direction, produced the following informational video, showing what porn could very well be like should Measure B pass.
It has been a big week for transgender Americans, with a landmark U.S. Tax Court ruling and the passing of a bill in Massachusetts that will grant legal civil rights protection to transgender individuals. The Transgender Equal Rights bill, approved by the State Senate Wednesday, will, when signed by supportive Governor Deval Patrick, grants transgender MA residents protection against employment, education, housing, and credit discrimination, as well as include gender identity and gender expression to the state’s hate crimes law. Legislative Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Gavi Wolfe, stated: “This bill is about giving transgender people an equal shot at obtaining everyday basics we all need — a job, a place to live, an education. It’s a major step forward for fairness, and we urge the legislature to pass it right away.” The fight for transgender equality is not over, however, as a key clause calling for protection against discrimination in public accommodations was dropped two days before the vote after heavy criticisms from House Republicans.
In the U.S. Tax Court, a ruling may now force the Internal Revenue Service to allow transgender individuals to deduct unreimbursed medical expenses from federal tax returns, as any other citizen would a non-gender related medical expense. Rhiannon O’Donnabhain changed her sex from male to female and attempted to deduct hormone therapy and surgery from her 2010 tax return only to find the IRS disallowing on the basis that these procedures “did not treat a medically recognized disease or promote the proper function of the body.”
The Tax Court, however, saw things differently citing four bases for its ruling in favor of Ms. O’Donnabhain: “1) the disorder is widely recognized in diagnostic and psychiatric reference texts; 2) the texts and all three experts testifying in the case consider the disorder a serious medical condition; 3) the mental health professionals who examined Ms. O’Donnabhain found that her disorder was a severe impairment; and, 4) the Courts of Appeal generally consider gender identity disorder a serious medical condition.” Although she was not able to claim a deduction for her breast enhancement surgery – the court said her tits were fine without it – and although the ruling notes that it is “not to be relied upon or otherwise cited as precedent by taxpayers,” the IRS has agreed to no longer hold the official position of denying gender reassignment patients and those having treatment for Gender Identity Disorder the same tax rights as cisgender citizens.