Log In, Get Off, Tax Write Off? Charitable Pornography Making A Stand

With vision and the internet, you can basically do anything anymore. Two organizations are showing how that is possible using the pornography industry to raise money for different types of charities. I’ll let you read that again if it seems surprising.

A newly-launched all-male porn studio—Boys Town Studios—will be releasing videos and donating all profits to the lgbt community to support gay rights.

Mike Kulich, owner of Monarchy Distribution, says that in order to benefit from the charity, “Anyone will be able to write Boys Town Studios and tell their stories about how bigotry and homophobia has affected their lives, and we will step in to help those victims as much as we can.” The first video’s profits will go toward helping queer Russian refugees because of everything happening to the lgbt community in Russia.

The first film to be released is entitled Deep In The Dark sometime in October, and the studio is planning to release at least two films per month, including branching into genres like twinks, bears, s&m, and other fetishes. Kulich’s reasons for launching the not-for-profit porn studio is because he wants “to help the people suffering all over the world and living in persecuting countries using the best way I know how: making quality porn.”

Not only will the studio have videos, they’ll also be branching out into other markets. As Kulich explained, “100 percent of the profits from all these movies, including DVD sales, video-on-demand, cable and broadcast will be donated to our newly created non-profit.” Monarchy Distribution is the parent company for the new studio and primarily handles straight titles, so it should be able to give a quality backing for everything Boys Town Studios creates.

Another creative solution to issues facing queer people worldwide comes in the form of something you can not only buy, but actually participate in.

Michael Wondercub has created a Rockethub, a “crowdfunding machine” similar to Kickstarter or IndieGoGo, for his brainchild “Benevidz—Sex for Charity” project. The website is made up of webcam models who perform for money, and then can donate between 10 and 15 percent of what they make during their time online to a specific charity, of which the site has six so far willing to accept donated money from sex workers.

The Rockethub announcement describes the idea stemming from Wondercub’s past, and why charities he has lined up include aiding victims of domestic abuse and cancer research. He also got the idea for cams for charity from his college days, when according to an interview with The Huffington Post he raised money for college masturbating online and felt empowered by it.

Benevidz.com will have male, female, and trans performers; gay, straight, old, and young (over 18 of course), and work to appeal to a large range of people. Wondercub hopes that if he can tap into just a tiny percentage of the adult entertainment industry, he could donate more than $1 million to charities in all of his causes, which his video speaks a lot to.

Wondercub is looking to raise $15,000 for overhead costs associated with starting up the website in order to more quickly be able to donate money toward his causes. He’s hoping that you’ll be able to give you a helping hand so he can give you one back when his website goes live. You can also sign up to be part of the action and star in your own show.

Maybe the world of pornography is changing, or maybe porn studios are hoping people will pay for pornography based on moral grounds. If both endeavors are successful, it sounds like they’ll be doing good things for everyone involved, so be on the lookout for some new things.

Porn in public: the death of civility?

Is it time to mourn public civility?

 

Today’s New York Times had a front page article on San Francisco’s pragmatic solution to the problem of public library patrons purviewing porn: special hoods over the Internet workstations. The city turned to this solution because banning or blocking library visitors from adult websites would cause here a hue and cry not heard since the SFPD tried to crack down on nude runners in the annual Bay-to-Breakers race. This is a city – my beloved San Francisco, my home for fifteen years until I moved to LA – where even straight parents think it’s perfectly fine to take a seven year old to the Folsom Street Fair, where it’s far from rare to see not just full-frontal nudity (sometimes with mangled and pierced private parts), but public sex, not to mention flogging, bondage, and men in scary gas-masks. (Even homeless people join the revelry, shedding their garb.) I was in San Francisco for the last Folsom, and wasn’t overly surprised to see nude, excessively hair men sitting composedly on the corner of Market and Castro, reading the Sunday paper. The city decided to allow public nudity, but to require the practicioners to  have something – anything – even a sheet from their newspaper – between their posteriors and their seats.

While I applaud, once again, the civic mindedness and enlightenment of the SF  Board of Supervisors, I can’t help wishing that they hadn’t had to come up with a solution to porn-watching public library customers. Let’s face it, people should know better. To me, raised in England, that position seems a no-brainer. You shouldn’t need to be told that your free  rights as a citizen should give way, at times, to the concept of the public shared space of civility. Yet, sometimes, I feel it’s coming to seem like heresy to say this in America, a country in which personal liberty of behavior has come to attain the highest value.

I see it all the time at Starbucks in West Hollywood: people looking at Craigslist ads, hairy penises and all. Even if it weren’t for my concept of appropriate public behavior, I’d never be seen dead looking at ads like that in full view of others. While that’s partly my own personal story of obsessive privacy – I’d be equally dead against being seen choosing drapes on the Macys website – would it be that difficult for people to at least try to screen their screens?

People’s belief in their right to do what they want, where they want, plays out in so many ways here. You’re looked at in befuddled amazement by someone you ask to please talk more quietly on their phones. On one flight from Dallas to Burbank, the gal in the middle seat behind me talked non-stop, in a piercing nasal voice, to her seatmates, both strangers, about every personal detail of her life. It wasn’t just me. People several rows in front and back of her were obviously squirming in distaste at the travails of her on and off against boyfriend, and the scars from removing the tattoos on her upper thighs.

As we stood up to deplane, there was the inevitable delay in opening the front door, so she set off again, and, all of a sudden, I couldn’t help myself. I turned to her and asked her if she ever stopped talking. Did she realize that everybody within twenty feet could now recount her entire childhood? The look on her face was priceless: she obviously thought, who is this jerk? The thought that her behavior was in the least imposing on others was patently not capable of forming in her mind. (Reactions from my fellow passengers were mixed, with two people shaking my hand, and one calling me an animal and – the real motivator of his anger – a faggot (since he made this intervention at luggage claim after I’d just hugged my boyfriend.)

Speaking of flying, there was another recent New York Times article (which, try as I might, I can’t locate on their website) in Tuesday’s Itineraries section, where the journalist was casting about for opinions on when you should give up your seat so that couples or families could sit together. He reported several cases of antagonism when people refused to give up their seats. People apparently believed they had a God-given right to sit together, even though they hadn’t had the wherewithal to book their seats far enough in advance to secure them side-by-side. But I didn’t really understand the thrust of the article. The writer seemed to be asking the question, is it right to give up your seat? That seems to me fundamentally the wrong approach, since there’s really no right answer. In my hypothesized arena of perfect public civility, it would be a case-by-case basis: there’d be a polite request; the person being asked to move would weigh their own personal comfort needs against courtesy and fellow-feeling, and would choose accordingly; and everybody would accept the decision.

(I’m not a good test case: I’d almost never give up my seat. But not out of selfishness. Instead, out of pure survival instinct. I’m 6’6, with broad-shoulders, and the only way I can survive any flight over two hours long, is to sit exit-row/aisle. It would make of me a masochist to give up that carefully scheduled survival seat just so a lovey-dovey couple could avoid the awfulness of three hours apart.)

Oh, I could go on. Peeing on the seat in public toilets; talking loudly in cinemas (“kill the bitch”); the habit of LA pedestrians of joining the endless stream through cross-walks where a car is expected to wait forever, apparently, purely because the pedestrians do indeed have the right of way; all manner of self-entitled LA behavior, come to think of it. But I’ll rest my case. It’s time for the Last Rites on public civility.