No knock on Oprah intended. I’m just thinking about what it’s going to be like writing about my films using “vajayjay” and “hoohoo” instead of “cunt” and “pussy”.

This morning’s stat check shows an inbound link from Spaced Cowgirl. As a matter of course I followed it back. That’s what you do. You follow the link, leave your thanks in the comments, look for a pull-quote for a blog post. But this morning I got more than I expected.

My husband is the only person I have ever had sex with, so my relationship with him is my only reality in terms of partnered sex. In other areas of life where I wonder “how it is” for my friends or acquaintances, it’s usually possible for me to either ask directly, or to peer (when invited) into their homes and relationships and gain some insight to help answer my question. I may not know what it’s like to be a parent or divorced or to have a partner who is constantly absent or at work, or how others experience more mundane aspects of life such as food preparation and housework, or just what life is like in general for another couple or family, but I can experience firsthand at least the most superficial features of these differences from my own life, if not gain a complete understanding. By contrast, the nature of how other couples relate to one another sexually is opaque to me. Don’t get me wrong; it’s not something I would “like” to see; I do not actually want an altered reality where it would be appropriate or desirable to intrude on the most private, intimate moments of my friends or neighbors or random people in the grocery store. But lately for some reason I have been longing to know, to understand, the essence of what it means for other couples to relate to each other physically. What do they do that they call “sex”? But more importantly, why does that work for them, and what role does sex play in their lives? How does their attraction to one another manifest itself? How can it be that even couples who don’t outwardly seem to like each other much still find physical connection to be an important and necessary part of their lives?

I think this wondering explains my recent fascination with material like these films (I haven’t seen any of them in their entirety, and definitely NSFW). Certainly no film or narrative can truly explain what sex is or what it means, but I think these documentaries might be more “true” than traditional porn or sex tips in Cosmo. Mainstream sources might help me understand the purely mechanical ins and outs (ha!) of what society-at-large defines as or believes (or at least what they say they believe) to be “sex,” but don’t really answer my questions. For example, the fact that as a society we are mostly on board nowadays with oral sex and the clitoris is a great thing, but simply knowing how to get yourself or someone else off doesn’t necessarily guarantee that you will be able to have sex that you consider great or meaningful, now or in the future. And while knowing how to give a better blow job (though preferably based on your partner’s input, not a how-to article) might be a positive thing for both of you, this improvement is unlikely to be the profound center of your sexual relationship as a couple. Perhaps the general fact that you want blow jobs to be better for your partner is a better outward expression of the essence and meaning of sex in a relationship.

Our films are unashamedly graphic; the mechanical details of sex, as Walter Murch puts it, “closely observed” and celebrated too. I think sex – in all it’s lovely pinkness – is beautiful!

Our films are also unabashedly erotic. There are none of the usual art-house tropes; none of the justifications and prevarications that directors routinely employ to answer inevitable question: Is it art? Or is it porn?

There is this idea that when depicting sex, a filmmaker has to choose between being explicit and being cinematic, between erotic heat and emotional weight. (Mike Nichols, “I think sex in a movie is boring… Sex is very powerful as part of a fantasy… But to stare directly at it is to be wasting most of what’s available in drama and in film.” John Cameron Mitchell, “We tried to de-eroticize the sex to see what kind of emotions and ideas are left over when the haze of eroticism is waved away.”)

All well and good, but what about the motions and ideas that are carried off with that haze that Nichols, Mitchell, and other filmmakers seem so eager to “wave away”? What about  the beauty there is to be seen when we “stare directly” at sex? How is it that Spaced Cowgirl, a woman who’s only ever had sex with her husband, is open to this reality, but Nichols, Mitchell, and our society as a whole seems to closed off?

That question has a thousand answers. It’s the biases, built consciously or unconsciously into Google. It’s Justice Woolsey’s 80 year old decision in US v Ulysses. It’s Paypal’s TOS. And on and on and on. It’s a thousand things, big and little, designed to keep erotic depictions of sex “in their place”.

But if there isn’t a place in cinema to explore and celebrate sex, not even in the context of love and commitment. Where does that leave us? What is our route to understanding our sexual selves? Pornography and Cosmo sex-tips articles? (I’ll add art-films that inevitably present explicit sex in a negative contexts to Spaced Cowgirl’s short sad list.)

As much as any other reason, it’s the paucity of those choices that makes making these films mean so very much to me. It’s the paucity of those choices makes me fight, sometimes quixotically, to make a place “at the grown-up table” for for these films.

There is something about what Spaced Cowgirl calls “the mystery of sex” that is almost completely unaddressed in cinema, and that being able to “see” that mystery, without actually having to intrude on your neighbors helps us see ourselves a little more clearly. And whatever name you want to give to that, I think it’s important.

I sent a note to Matt Cutts earlier today, and to his and Google’s credit Matt wrote back. I’m not sure how much, if any of his note is appropriate to post here. For the time being let me say this:

I think Matt is a good guy. After the great Google fuck up of 2006 was (mostly) squared away, I offered to send him a copy of one of our films, just so he could see what the hubbub was about. Matt said that while the offer was tempting, he’d have to decline. He didn’t want to raise even the possiblity of the hint of conflict of interest. As angry as I was when I woke up this morning, I was not, and am not angry at Matt.

I am still angry at Google. The keywords/pagerank stuff is frustrating, and it costs us revenue. But this Google Suggests thing goes deeper. The half of my mother’s family that didn’t emigrate to the US is gone. Extinguished. Reduced to ash and carried away by the wind. Seeing that Google’s world is big enough to include [stormfront] in their Google Suggests feature, but they can’t find a seat at the table for [comstock films] or [tony comstock] literally makes me shake with rage. Naturally I am keen on hearing an explanation.

Apologies to Matt for jumping the gun with my earlier post.

[blowfish] is on it. [blowback] is not. [nina hartely] is on the list. [annie sprinkle] is not. [tony comstock] is on the Google “no fly” list. [peggy comstock] is not.

In each of these cases, and many others, the common thread to whether or not a search string will auto-populate in Google’s search field is whether or not there are potentially “objectionable” websites with high rankings the search returns; so Google will “suggest” [sexual intercourse] or [sex offender], but not [sex toys] or [sex education].

Of course by “objectionable”, Google means “sexual”. [stormfront], [nazi], and [white power] all auto populate, and searches on those terms give high rankings to stormfront.org, americannaziparty.com, and whitehonor.com respectively.

It is an incredible slap in the face. Yeah, I get it. Google wants to stay out of hot water, and so they don’t want their “Google Suggests…” pointing anyone to boobies (much less cunts and cocks.) But Nazi skinheads? No problem there. Don’t be evil? How about don’t be a dickhead?

A bigger concern than the fact that there’s a list with [tony comstock] and [comstock films] on it as terms that won’t populate is the worry that somewhere inside of the Google there is a list with comstockfilms.com on it as a site they don’t want to send people to. Is that getting factored into our pagerank? Is that why our visitors on [real sex] dropped from 100-200/day to almost zero? Who can know?

And as far as I can tell, tinynibbles.com is on that list, blowfish.com is on that list, vividvideo.com is on that list, and a whole bunch of other sexually explicit sites, spanning a wide range of attitudes towards sexuality. And all of us — from goodvibes.com to buttman.com — are, in Google’s estimation, worse than racist hate sites.

I am angry. I am angry at Google, and I am angry at a world that wants to be “offended” by two men wanting to fuck each other for the rest of their lives than by the people who would kick those men’s faces in with the heels of their jackboots.

“Don’t be evil” Really? Matt Cutts or anyone else at Google: show me how I’ve misconnected the dots. I’d rather be wrong than angry. I’d rather be the one who’s lost his mind.

 For those of you who missed it two years ago, we’re bringing back the Comstock Films Video Podcast; serialized version of our award-winning erotic documentary films. We’ll begin with the film that started it at, “Marie and Jack: A Hardcore Love Story, Episode 1″ Use the link below to subscribe. Enjoy!

http://feeds.comstockfilms.com/ComstockFilmsVideoPodcast

50% +1 vote; that’s what it takes to change the California constitution, and that looks like what’s going to happen. Californians will, by a narrow margin, invalidated the marriages of the gay and lesbian fellow Californians.

Fourteen years ago, Oregonians, again by a narrow margin, rejected Ballot Measure 9. As in California, the measure was supported in rural counties (like where I lived) and rejected in urban counties (Portland/Willamette Valley).

After the cut, a parody I wrote shortly after Measure Nine was defeated. Strange to reflect all that’s transpired in the 14 years since.
(more…)

From Barbara Wallraff’s new “In a Word” Blog over at Atlantic.com:

[Tomorrow] the Supreme Court will hear FCC vs. Fox Television Stations, as yesterday’s New York Times Week in Review section pointed out. The crux of the case is whether … I can write the word here, “fuck” falls afoul of indecency regulations because it necessarily refers to “sexual or excretory activities or organs.”….

“Peter Chernin, the president of News Corporation, which owns Fox, has complained that forbidding people from swearing on network TV puts the networks at “an inexplicable competitive disadvantage.” I don’t see that. As things stand, viewers know the networks won’t assault them with language that’s offensive on purpose. This could just as easily be a competitive advantage, if the networks treat it as one.

“To sum up: I’m not eager to hear “fuck” on network TV. What’s usually objectionable with the word, though, isn’t that it’s sexual but that it’s crude.”

I like wordplay, and really enjoy Barbara’s Word Fugitive in the paper version of The Atlantic, and I’m hoping that her blog will take off. But Barbara misunderstands the way that government regulation of sexual expression effects the market, and she’s dead wrong on why “fuck” has made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Her assertion that the objectionable aspect of “fuck” is crudeness, not sexuality is not born out by what we see on tee vee or anywhere else. Crudeness in the media is tolerated, if not celebrated, so long as it is not explicitly sexual; where as explicit sexuality is suppressed, even when explored in the most poetic and humane manner.

Okay, this going to work pretty much exactly like the Hurricane Katrina Red Cross Fundraiser we did back on September 14, 2005.

This time it’s going to be from Tuesday, Oct. 28, 12AM Eastern to Oct. 29 3AM Eastern. 27 hours, 100% of the purchase price on our erotic documentary DVDs (excluding S&H) going to the No On Proposition 8 Campaign.

So get your blog on. Get your Twitter and your Facebook and your MySpace on. Text a friend, e-mail a loved one. Tell them that if they buy any Comstock Films DVD on October 28, 100% of the purchase price will go helping stop Ballot Measure 8 in California.

After Hurricane Katrina with your help, this little mom and pop operation raised over $4,000 for the Red Cross. How much we raise to stop Prop 8 is up to all of you. There’s not much time.

So what are you waiting for? Go! Now! Go!

UPDATE 8/28 9:21PM EDT

We are at $784. We’d really like to be able to make a $1000 donation to NoOnProp8.com later tonight. Make a purchase now and help us get there!

No better way to say it than how Peggy said it on her blog this morning:

We’ve decided to open up the Comstock Films Affiliate Program to a wider range of participants. If you have a blog and you’d like to pick up a little income while supporting the work we do here at Comstock Films, the Affiliate Program might be right for you!

We offer a flat 20% commission on sales referred from your Affiliate link. Choose from a variety of art, or design your own. Sign up now!

Last weekend we had did a DVD give away with the ever wonderful Always Aroused Girl, with a DVD now on it’s way to Randi of IfYouCant.Blogspot.com. (But the biggest winner was me. As a result AAG’s help in getting the word out, yesterday I got to make a really beautiful/sexy photo of a really beautiful sexy woman!)

This weekend’s contest is Twitter-based. As previously announced, my wife Peggy is taking up the lion’s share blogging duties her at Comstock Films, and we need help getting the word out. 

(Yeah, yeah, yeah, but how do I get my free DVD?)

Simple: Follow Peggy Comstock on Twitter. You don’t have a Twitter account? Then make one. It’s fast and free.

The winner will be chosen at random from Peggy’s “followers” as of 12:00PM, Monday October 20. You will get your choice of one of our award-winning real sex documentary films. If your name is drawn, to claim your prize, you must twitter something like, “OMG! I won! I won! That’s so effing cool!” If you’re already following Peggy, you’re already in.

Good Luck!