An insider's view of the industry

Q&A

Yagielowicz

Stephen Yagielowicz is the senior editor of XBIZ, an adult industry news organization boasting two large-format monthly trade magazines, two annual trade events, an annual "red carpet" awards show honoring excellence within the adult entertainment industry and more. A working webmaster for 14 years with a prior background in photography and video production, he is also the founder of AdultSafe, an organization devoted to protecting the rights of consumers on the Internet.

QUESTION: Much has been written and said about pornography being addictive, on par with drugs, booze and cigarettes. Do you buy this notion?

ANSWER: While "much has been written and said about pornography being addictive, on par with drugs, booze and cigarettes," it's important to consider that this misinformation has been based upon questionable "science" and the opinions of anti-porn activists -- not upon any legitimate, unbiased research.

Consider also the fact that "drugs, booze and cigarettes" are all physical, chemical agents that are ingested and can indeed have measurable, harmful, addictive effects. The mere viewing of any type of subject matter hardly falls into this category and, in fact, belittles the very real battles that addicts face over "drugs, booze and cigarettes" -- all of which can be lethal. No one ever died from looking at porn.

While some compulsive types can be "addicted" to anything, such as watching a favorite television show, eating ice cream or going to the gym, nobody suggests that ice cream is akin to crack cocaine and should be regulated to protect fat people from themselves -- instead, these compulsive actions are rightfully viewed by society as personality defects in the individual -- not as evil perpetrated by the dairy industry, for example.

QUESTION: The Supreme Court definition of obscenity talks about average people applying contemporary community standards and whether the work lacks "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." That implies that the work must possess some redeeming value. Can you speak to the societal good that comes from adult content?

ANSWER: The concept of contemporary community standards is a simple one, which allows, for example, the good folks of Salt Lake City to deem that they do not want to be publicly exposed to the type of material that may indeed be in demand in say, New York, Miami, Chicago or Los Angeles. By the same token, folks in other jurisdictions should not be limited in their choice of entertainment by what is considered proper by Salt Lake City standards.

As for the societal good that comes from adult content, I'll venture that the accessibility of adult entertainment saves more marriages than it harms. This is because fantasy can replace infidelity, when, for example, one partner in a marriage is unable to satisfy the other's sexual needs either due to medical reasons, emotional issues or an unwillingness to engage in a specific act. Rather than leading to acting out their desires, exposure to adult entertainment provides a safe alternative, free from the risk of sexually transmitted disease, immune to unwanted pregnancy and within the confines of the marriage vows.

QUESTION: The CP80 Foundation, based in Utah, wants to set up separate Web ports on the Internet for adult and family content. What do you think of this idea?

ANSWER: If the goal is to protect children, then by all means establish a kid-friendly zone on the Internet. But even a kid-friendly zone will be ineffective without parental responsibility, where it's up to parents to supervise their children's online activities, rather than the more common trend of using the Internet as a baby sitter.

I've personally advocated the establishment of an ".adults" TLD that would be all-encompassing of material deemed potentially harmful to or otherwise inappropriate for minors -- including pornography, liquor, gaming, tobacco, firearms, etc. -- but such moves to "ghettoize" any class of legal, Constitutionally protected material are met with fierce levels of resistance. The use of filtering mechanisms is a much better alternative that is already here today.

QUESTION: Should pornographic material, whether purchased in the community or viewed online, come with the same kinds of warning labels we place on alcohol and tobacco products?

ANSWER: Like what? "Warning: If you don't stop it, you'll go blind!" Going back to my comments on the fallacy of addiction, alcohol and tobacco are physical substances with very real health risks that are ingested into the body and not at all comparable to material that is simply viewed.

Having said that, responsible operators of adult Web sites already place warning notices on their homepages, alerting visitors who may have accidentally stumbled upon their Web site that it contains material of an adult nature.

QUESTION: Should minors be able to view adult content online?

ANSWER: Absolutely not; it's illegal in the U.S. and wrong besides. No legitimate operators of online adult entertainment companies want or encourage visits by minors. They pose a liability and cannot even pay for our products and services, making this an issue with many downsides and no benefits to the Web site operators.

QUESTION: If the answer is "no" to the prior question, is there a better way to keeps kids from the myriad pornographic sites available online? And does the industry that is providing this content have an obligation to come up with a solution?

ANSWER: The best way to keep kids away from adult entertainment is for parents and guardians to exercise personal responsibility and supervise their children's Internet access. In our household, even though the "children" include a junior in high school and two college students in their 20s, unsupervised Internet access is not allowed.

Having said that, the online adult entertainment industry through the auspices of ASACP, the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection, has in response to congressional demands, released its RTA, or Restricted To Adults, labeling solution, which allows all responsible adult Web site owners to add a free snippet of code to their sites that prevents the site from being displayed on computers that use any of the popular software filtering mechanisms.

QUESTION: What does it say to you that companies such as Marriott and Hilton are now partners in your enterprises?

ANSWER: It says that these publicly held companies acknowledge the demand and mainstream acceptability of adult entertainment and recognize that it is only a very small but vocal minority of intolerant book-burners that oppose it.

Thankfully the decision makers at these companies leave the choice of which legal material consumers want to see up to the consumer, rather than giving in to pressure from those self-righteous individuals that think they know what's best for the rest of us.

QUESTION: Some, such as the Lighted Candle Society, a group led by the former lieutenant governor of California, promise to hit the adult industry with tobacco-style litigation, essentially civil suits intended to damage the industry with huge jury awards. Is there a fear in the industry that, given its unpopularity in some circles, it could be damaged through this approach?

ANSWER: Not at all. Of course, this points to how for some, being anti-porn is all about the money and illustrates why the enemies of free speech are so interested in proving "addiction" or other harmful effects as a gateway to a profit-driven witch hunt. After all, "tobacco-style litigation" requires the establishment of tobacco-style harmful effects.

QUESTION: Some in the adult industry use various means to entice people to their product: buying up registered domain names, sending people who may not want the content unsolicited e-mails, and connecting adult pages to each other so that when you attempt to close a window you are instead connected to another. How do those in what might be considered the mainstream adult industry view these practices?

ANSWER: "Buying up registered domain names" is misleading; more appropriately "buying up previously registered, but since abandoned, domain names" is a practice more common among mainstream marketers than adult webmasters. This is done to capitalize on any existing traffic to the domain and to build portfolios of what is essentially real estate.

"Sending people who may not want the content unsolicited e-mails" is illegal in the U.S. under the CAN-SPAM act and as such is the province of overseas criminal operations, not of legitimate U.S.-based companies. As a side note, adult entertainment offers now account for only 3 percent of spam, according to the latest figures.

"Connecting adult pages to each other so that when you attempt to close a window you are instead connected to another" is all a matter of degrees. For example, the launching of one or two windows, known as "exit consoles," is an accepted but outdated form of Web marketing. Accepted because in the past, a Web site could expect an additional 30 percent or more in bottom-line revenue from using these consoles; outdated because most major browser software features built-in "pop-up blockers" that limit their efficacy today.

It's vitally important that folks understand that there is a great difference among adult Web site operators: You have the legitimate megabrands as well as countless "mom and pop" operators striving to do the right thing while satisfying an enormous public demand for our wares. On the other hand, you have literally tens of thousands of overseas operators (what I like to call the 15-year-old Ukrainian kid in his momma's basement) who are beyond U.S. law and totally uncaring of the consequences of their actions, as long as there are a few rubles to make. The facts bear out that these enterprises are the main sources of illegal child pornography and of most of the abusive practices that legitimate operators are tarnished with.

As an example, it's like holding up a back-alley abortionist as a poster-boy for the medical profession: It's just not the truth.