Archive for the ‘erotophobia’ Category

Clear Play Filter Stick?

Thursday, February 15th, 2007

I’ve just finished reading THE CONVERSATIONS: WALTER MURCH AND THE ART OF FILM EDITING. Murch is wonderfully eloquent in explaining the role that chance or serendipity can play in making films, without coming off as some sort of flake who leaves things to chance because he’s not creative enough or craftsmanly enough to control his projects.

Well thanks to the serendipitous combination of Violet Blue’s writing, The Chronical’s mainstream status, and the ever mysterious Googlebot, I’ve learned about things today that I never would have imagined.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Filtering DVD Player

The combination of Violet’s copy, mainstream placement, and the Googlebot is some sort of idiot savant uber algorythm for data-mining for everything that is wrong with how our culture thinks about sex. I just called Purity Solutions to ask how I could submit my films to become a part of their filtered films database.

No one was there, so I left a message.

Google Fails When Language Fails, Part Three

Thursday, February 15th, 2007

Scroll down to out the ads Google generated for Violet Blue’s latest Chronical column:

Some things are so beautiful they shimmer!

Speaking of Pubes and Pussies…

Thursday, January 25th, 2007

And to think that I sometimes worry I spend too much time thinking about beavers, shaved and otherwise:

PL Pubic Hair/Pubic Region Detectors.

(Don’t even ask me what I was googling for when I found this.)

“No one got a hard-on watching this film”

Wednesday, January 17th, 2007

“The erotically charged plot is not meant to arouse the audience-No one got a hard-on watching this film.” — Film Director John Cameron Mitchell after the Cannes premiere of SHORTBUS

Well maybe not at Cannes, but it looks like maybe someone over imdb.com got a boner.

Brought to Tears by MATT AND KHYM

Monday, January 15th, 2007


A very nice note came in over the weekend. By permission of the author:

“Hi Tony,I suspect you are at the AVN Awards tonight — having a lovely time I hope — but I just watched _Matt and Khym_ (I was a pre-order customer) and couldn’t wait to email you. I found this couple utterly delightful and feel I could not overstate my praise for this film.

“I remember being brought to tears by the sex scene in _Marie and Jack_, and upon reflection it occurred to me that that was because I had never, from the outside, witnessed explicit sexual intimacy like that — that is, despite my considerable viewing history of porn, I had never watched two people in love like that have sex. With Matt and Khym, that reaction in me was even stronger, and I was brought to tears a number of times both while they were speaking and also during their sex scene.

“Thank you, so much, for what you do. I am of the belief that sexuality is truly one of the most important aspects of humanity/life, making its vilification by puritanically-based social factions (which seem so very prevalent in our contemporary society) all the more concerning and, in my option, detrimental. Efforts like yours and Peggy’s are quite heartening to me, and I am pleased to take this opportunity to express my appreciation. My best to both of you.

Namaste,
Emily M.

Coming on the heels of our misadventure with PBS, this note is especially welcome.

We make enough money through this work to sustain us financially, but against the constant backdrop of vilification, it can be tremendously draining emotionally. Whether it’s the OFLC or PBS, or printer that won’t print a poster because it’s “pornographic”, their cravenness and my own impotence in the face of that cravenness is exhausting, it’s discouraging, and sometimes I just want to quit.

Then I get a note like Emily’s, or I read a post like Jenn P’s, and I feel like we’re doing something important, something that matters, something that makes the world a better place. And I decide I can quite tomorrow.

PBS Disappears Sex Links?

Wednesday, January 10th, 2007

A few days after the Boing Boing post about Google’s sexblog snafu, I was exchanging e-mail with Mark Glaser, who writes the PBS blog MEDIASHIFT. Mark also talked to Violet Blue, Matt Cutts, and Danny Sullivan, and the result is a very thoughtful piece about how the power wrapped up in Google’s search algorithyms can hurt the little guy.

The piece opens with a long quote from Chelsea Girl’s Love Letter to Google. It quotes both me and especially Violet quite a bit. It quote’s from my blog, and even refers readers to it. But the piece does not link to my blog. Nor does it link to Comstock Films. And though it mentions them, it does not link to Pretty Dumb Things or Tiny Nibbles either.

It does link to Search Engine Land, it links to Matt Cutts, and it links to Boing Boing.

Perhaps it’s just an oversight. I hope so, but ten years’ experience of trying to bring the best of what I have, as a filmmaker and as a human being, to the depiction of sex makes me doubt that’s the reason that the PBS article doesn’t link to Comstock Films.

We’ve had printers refuse to print our inserts and posters because they were “pornographic”. I had my words used without attribution, let alone a link. Hell, I’ve even had a government ban one of my films from an entire continent.

So when PBS runs a story that started with a post that I made on my blog, and then doesn’t even link to my blog, it doesn’t surprise me. Am I disappointed? Yes. But surprised? No.

Fortunately, our situation with Google seems stable. If anyone goes looking for us as a result of the PBS piece, they should be able to find us!

P.S. Should anyone care to contact PBS ombudsman Michael Getler, you can do so here. Tell ‘im Tony says “hi”.

P.S.S. I knew something wasn’t quite right. The editors at MEDIASHIFT had no problem linking to TinyNibbles.com in the January 4 Top 5 Stories post. What do you supposed happened between this week and last?

Theoretical Eroticism vs. Practical Eroticism

Tuesday, January 9th, 2007

Bernard-Henri Lévy

“All theoreticians of eroticism know that when there is no distance, there is no border; when there is no border, there is no taboo; when there is no taboo there is no transgression; and when there is no transgression there is no desire.”

All theoreticians? Really? Not me, but then I’m not a erotic theorotician, I’m an erotic filmmaker. At 58 Lévy still has time to discover that transgression is not the essense of desire. Good luck, Bernie!

Art vs. Porn, Part 274

Tuesday, January 9th, 2007

“I have been a photographer my entire adult life. In the name of bearing witness to the human condition I’ve documented unspeakable suffering, violence, and death; and for that I’ve been praised as a courageous witness. When I review the scope of people, places and events that have passed before my lens, I am unable to comprehend the censor’s rationale for “protecting” adults from photographic images of sexuality. Adults have the capacity and the right to choose for themselves what sort of images they wish to see. They do not need to be protected from images of sex, and least of all from a film like DAMON AND HUNTER. In the face of horrific images we are exposed to each and every day, the OFLC decision is not only unfair, it is perverse.”Tony Comstock, An Open Letter to the OFLC

Art vs. Porn, Part 273

Monday, January 8th, 2007

Remember, a simulated depiction of the rape of a child, using an actual 12 year old child, made with the intent to horrify the audience, is art.

An actual depiction of adults engaged in consentual, mutually pleasurable sex, made with the intent to arouse and delight the audience is merely porn.

Are we clear? Good.

Google Fails When Language Fails

Thursday, December 28th, 2006

If you go back and take a look at my first blog post you’ll see that writing about my work is a relatively new thing for me. I have been known to say “If I could write words to express what I want to express, I wouldn’t have to make films!”

And in someways that would so much easier. A writer needs but a pen and paper and her imagination. She can choose to use whatever words she likes; there are none more costly than others. Even on my tiny little films, I depend on a couple dozen other people to put their art and craft and sweat in the service of my vision. The equipment and supplies needed to make movies is expensive. The people who know how to make or use these things have bills to pay, so they need to be paid.

But the result of all this effort and expense is that my expression is (to some degree) liberated from the limits of language. I can explore and express ideas that we simply don’t have the right language to enjoy in words alone. This is especially true when it comes to sex. Indeed, even after 10 years of making these films, I continue to struggle to find words for what makes these films what they are, and I’m not alone. If you read what other people write about our work, it is often described in terms of what it is not.

Describing what these films are is more slippery. Selecting the words for sex, which is at the very heart of these films are, presents an array of disheartening choices. Shall we go medical/educational; penis, vulva, coitus? How about defiantly earthy; cunt, cock, fuck? Are these films frank or hardcore? Adult? Erotica? Porn? Or maybe a little bit of all of them, and perhaps something more as well, something that doesn’t yield words alone. Something that must be seen. Something that must be felt.

Google is a language-based business. It can’t listen to music, it can’t look at pictures, and it certainly can’t watch our previews. The googlebot comes to a site and registers words like “penis” and “vulva” and “coitus” or “cunt” and “cock” and “fuck”, and applies its algorithmic logic as it sees fit. It’s ability to understand what we do it limited by the shortcoming of the language we have to talk about sex. To the googlebot, sex is a biological function, or it’s adolescent prurience. There are no other words, so there are no other ideas, no other taxonomy, no other categories.

At least not in Google’s universe of words – which is why I choose to make films.

Some responses to people who commented on yesterday’s post:

M&K, I don’t think it’s censorship. The “adult internet” is rife with people who really have nothing to offer the world save their efforts to juke search results. It’s a different kind of spamgame, but in the end it’s volume driven, with few penalities for a low signal to noise ratio.

I think what happened a combination of Google trying to find a way to create a penalty, but without giving much thought to the way it’s approach might penalize people searching for sex information or products, or how it might harm people offering sex information or products. And why would they? What we do is very much a marginal activity, and there’s no real gain for Google to care about TinyNibbles.com or ComstockFilms.com. Frankly I’m shocked that Google has taken any interest at all.

AAG, Certainly an atrocious result. I think the motives are more a result of the confused status of sex in our culture than on anything specifically unwholesome at Google.

Matt Cutts, I’m glad we have our name back. I hope that our high ranking on relevent searchs returns as well. Among our top 50 referrers (Google used to be first or second every week) our organic Google visitors had the very highest page count per visitor. From that I’d infer that the way we were ranked last month was delivering quality search results to the people who came to our site via a google search.

Trip Hazzard, I’m glad we have our name back. Time will tell about the rest.

Inquistor, Thanks for checking up. There were a couple other similar sites that I didn’t name. Google seems to have re-connected some of them with their name-searches as well. I couldn’t say how their other search traffic has been effected. But there are others that are still out in the cold.

Halfdeck, This entire line of work is a crusdade. Thank you for your concern. Perhaps you’d like to chime in here.

Jason, Your comment might be interesting if it was informed by 1) facts. 2) an adult’s understanding of how the world works.