"Its About the Children" Privacy, Morality, and The Limits of Sexual Neoliberalism
This morning the following comment was posted in my topic below, regarding the recent controversy at Flavaworks Inc:
"It's about the children and porn of any kind is not something to have spack in the middle of a neighborhood. I would not want porn stars working or living in any area that I lived in. If a sex party opened in my neighborhood I would be the first to call and tell the police about it. There is a place for all of these things and it is not in an area where kids could possibly be exposed to then. The Freedom of Speech is not a cause or protection from ignorance. But you already have your hands in the pockets of Flavaworks so since your getting a check then you really don't care one way or the other."
Let me respond. First off, I'm so glad you've shared this opinion with us. It actually confirms many of my suspicions regarding the underlining issues framing this controversy. "Anonymous," let me pose a few quick questions to you---and I'd also like to welcome responses from others.
First of all, it truly amazes me that because I have dared to challenge the rhetoric of neoliberal moralism ("its not good for the children") I'm accused of "selling" out. Trust me when I tell you a few hundred bucks for snapping photographs at a ball certainly is not enough to "buy me out." The last time I checked I was a grown man and fully funded research fellow---I think I'm able to live pretty comfortably on my own without any big, fat "pay off" checks from Flavaworks. Sorry boo, I'm not on that payroll.
But here's what I'd like to ask you, and others:
Are you also an advocate of censoring the homes in this town where adulters live? Or what about those families that are engaged in incestous acts in their home? Would you also recommend that these homes be banished from this neighborhood of puritan saints? Can you articulate your investment in constructing public sex as "perverted," and/or "harmful"? Explain to me how people having sex in the privacy of their own home, regardless of whether or not it these acts are televised, poses a threat to the safety of neighboring children?
I find it quite ironic that the moral reasoning you invoke here is completely aligned with the state's logic for denying the "right to privacy" for gay people in the United States. This sort of "its about the children" logic has historically served as the United States' justification for the legal disfranchisement of gay men in particular (the most obvious example being the illegalization of sodomy instantiated in Bowers. vs. Hardwick).
I honestly am flawed that so many black gay men feel comfortable embracing the rhetoric of middle class sexual conservatism. The fact that people are having televised sex in their home places absolutely NO risk to children. Please explain to me how and why you see otherwise? Are you frightened that somehow these neighborhood children will accidently stumble into this whore-house and be captured and forced to engage in porn? Really, I'm interested in your response.
This whole thing is beginning to smell.
Pride canceled under questionable motives in light of its recent darkening. And now the black gay community is at each others throats over the rights to have sex in a 'family-oriented' neighborhood.
Are these anonymous posters hell-bent on distracting from the real issues at hand here? What's their payoff? It's hardly altruism and the safety of children. Especially when these same caring souls threw porn packages on the porches of those same South Florida children they claim to advocate for.
With all the ensuing media hype, those Dorm boys are now in a precarious and dangerous position. I fear for their safety.
There is absolutely nothing illegal going on there. My question is, who's the puppet master behind all this bait and switch?
In that same south Florida neighborhood, there are at least 20 registered sex-offenders within a 1/2 radius of the dorm. And contrary to that ominous 'expose' which put the whole neighborhood at risk of undesirable traffic and curiosity seekers, the sex in the dorm takes place behind frosted windows and is not "in view" as they claim.
Not a single neighbor knew what was going on or had any problems until the media descended desperate for ratings and eager to exploit the fear of the black gay man -- or as I like to call him, America's new nigger.
But the thing that angers me most is community leaders like Boykin who didn't hesitate to take his own dislike of Bleicher and blindly add fuel to the rhetoric by rehashing old claims and allegations.
The level of activisism in our community needs an overhaul ... from the top down.
Posted by
SGL Café.com |
5/12/2007
What's interesting to me Frank about the whole Flavaworks thing is that people have focused on the porn and the morality aspects of that story, and to a lesser extent the HIV transmission concerns voiced by the Chicago Dept of Health.
To me, the accusations of sexual and labor exploitation was the most egregious part of the whole story from a year ago. The fact that these poor Black men were put essentially in a debt peonage system (while we were in the midst of a debate about immigrant labor exploitation, mind you) was for me, the most disturbing, and the kids seemed to pay it on that point.
Posted by
Kenyon Farrow |
5/13/2007
From what I've seen of the dorm in Miami, and yes, I'm a member, the boys certainly aren't in any sort of "dept peonage." If this sort of accusation against FlavaWorks were true, I doubt if they'd have a list of around 50 online applicants who want to live in the dorm. Given the number of models they've used over the years, this type of mistreatment, if it existed, would be well known by now, and they wouldn't have new guys lining up to work for them.
Having said that, I realize that the models are getting paid a relatively small amount and the owners are making a bundle. But how is this different from most other businesses in the U.S., where people work for a paycheck?
Posted by
Anonymous |
5/15/2007