Obscene Thoughts: A Pornographers Perspective on Sex, Love, and Dating

State sodomy laws typically applied to both male-male and male-female situations, but they were usually enforced only with violent sexual crimes such as sexual assault and rape. Over time, penalties were reduced from death to fines and imprisonment. When the gay rights movement began in the s and several states repealed their sodomy laws altogether, other conservative states rewrote their sodomy laws to apply to only homosexual activity. In a sodomy case, Bowers v.

Obscene Thoughts: A Pornographer's Perspective on Sex, Love, and Dating

Hardwick , the Supreme Court upheld the rights of states to have sodomy laws, maintaining that nothing in the Constitution "would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy. According to that ruling, state laws criminalizing homosexual activity are unconstitutional since they violate the right to privacy. The court noted that public opinion, both in the U.

In the United States criticism of Bowers has been substantial and continuing, disapproving of its reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical assumptions. To the extent Bowers relied on values we share with a wider civilization, it should be noted that the reasoning and holding in Bowers have been rejected elsewhere. Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent.

Texas , , majority opinion]. Ultimately, the Lawrence decision defends the privacy of homosexuals in their bedrooms as a constitutionally protected liberty right, and the presumption is that this ruling will ultimately invalidate adultery and anti-fornication laws as well. Granting legal protection to private and consensual homosexual activity is one thing, but allowing gay couples to marry is another. Beginning in states began permitting same sex marriages. Defenders of such gay marriage legislation argued that it was a matter of justice: Marriage also grants couples a range of legal rights, such as to adopt children, inherit property, be on a family insurance policy, visit relatives in hospitals.

On the other hand, critics of gay marriage legislation argued that marriage is a unique contract with religious and moral implications that has historically applied to only heterosexual couples; allowing gay couples to marry undermines the historic nature of the institution itself. In reaction to the trend towards gay marriage, about 30 states banned same sex marriage, some with state constitution amendments. A anticipating the gay marriage trend, in Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act DOMA , which limited the rights of legally married homosexuals. There were two central components to the law.

First, gay marriages legalized in one state would not have to be acknowledged in another state; second, the federal government itself would not acknowledge gay marriages. The effect of this second stipulation was that gay couples, even when legally married in some states, could not receive any legal benefits of marriage at the federal level, such as social security or tax benefits.

But in the Supreme Court case, U. In this case, Edith Windsor was legally married to another woman in Canada and they resided in New York, which recognizes same-sex marriages. DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.

This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects. While this did not legalize gay marriage throughout the country, it provided legal ammunition to challenge bans on same sex marriage at the state level, which resulted in the legalization of same-sex marriage in 35 states.

Finally, in the Supreme Court case Obergefell v.

Andrea Dworkin

Hodges , gay marriage was recognized as a Constitutional right, and required all 50 states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter.

It is common to depict moral controversies as a debate between conservative and liberal sides of the issue. This is so with sexual morality, and we will conclude with a brief consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the two sides.

The conservative position regarding sex is that sexual activity should take place only between a man and a woman in a monogamous marriage. Nontraditional sexual practices such as premarital sex, homosexuality, adultery, and pornography are immoral and should be illegal. The main arguments for the conservative position are these:. Human nature is not open-ended, and does not allow for a free-for-all of any conduct that we like. Our nature is defined by a larger human good that is reflected in many of our natural inclinations and functions.

Sex is one of these: A criticism of this argument is that sexual activity serves a wider range of functions than mere procreation. Nontraditional sexual practices damage the social institution of marriage and its commitment to raising children in the most stable home situation. Society is not just about the desires of individual adults, but also about raising the next generation of citizens who will carry on in our footsteps and hopefully improve on what we have done.

A criticism of this argument is that children thrive just as well in many nontraditional family settings as they do in traditional ones. Harm from STDs and pregnancy: Nontraditional sexual practices are accompanied by serious harms, such as sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, and psychological feelings of shame. To the extent that we judge the rightness of our conduct based on their consequences, the negative side effects of nontraditional sexual practices are enormous, and not worth the risk.

A criticism of this argument is that there are ways of reducing the risks associated with nontraditional sexual practices. Safe sex reduces STDs, contraception use reduces unwanted pregnancies, avoiding one night stands reduces feelings of shame. With the right type of risk management, the benefits of many nontraditional sexual practices may outweigh their potential harms.

The liberal position regarding sex is that any type of non-harmful or non-exploitive sexual conduct is morally permissible and should be legal, including premarital sex, homosexuality, adultery, and pornography. The main arguments for the liberal position are these:. One of our most important values is the freedom of individuals to act as they choose, as long as their actions do not harm others, and this includes nontraditional sexual activity.

Toleration of differences is an important component of a free society, and, while conservative critics might not especially like nontraditional sexual practices, they are not justified in attempting to suppress them. A criticism of this argument is that the freely chosen sexual actions of nontraditionalists may have a negative impact on the lives of traditionalists.

Sexual permissiveness pervades all aspects of culture including movies, television shows, music, internet sites. This compromises the abilities of traditional parents to raise their children in a way that conforms to more traditional sexual values. Like many social values, moral attitudes about sexual practices vary dramatically from culture to culture, and our society has already grown to accept nontraditional sexual practices as a social norm.

It makes no sense to hold people to a 19 th century standard of sexual morality when our culture has shifted to one that is so much more sexually permissive. A criticism of this argument is that just because everyone is doing it does not mean that society should approve of it. Some people are not suited for traditional monogamous marriage, and sexual alternatives should be available to them. To the extent that homosexuality is biologically grounded, it is not realistic to expect gays to change their sexual orientation—any more than it is possible for heterosexuals to change theirs.

The average age for marriage is now around age 27, and it is unrealistic for young couples to postpone sex until then, and statistics show that hardly anyone does anyway. Pornography can also make that long waiting time more manageable. Some marriages are beyond repair, but the couples may need to stay together for financial reasons or because of children. Extramarital options can make their lives more fulfilling. A criticism of this argument is that traditional monogamous marriage is a viable option for most people.

Some may opt out if they find it too restricting, but that does not mean society should approve of every sexual activity that nontraditionalists choose to engage in. While disputes over sexual morality can get heated, there are several opportunities for compromise, and the U. The most pervasive nontraditional sexual practice is premarital sex, and people largely approve of it. The most potentially damaging nontraditional sexual practice is adultery, and people largely condemn it. Pornography is widely used, and, though soft core forms are Constitutionally protected, hard core forms are not, and child pornographers are actively prosecuted.

While people are divided over the morality of homosexuality, there is growing recognition of the biological factors driving homosexual orientation. In the spirit of toleration, the most important concession is the decriminalization of homosexuality and legalization of same-sex marriage, and this has now been done. Thus, traditionalists can still disapprove of these changes if they so choose, yet homosexuals are protected by law. So appears the foolishness of those who say that simple fornication is not a sin. For they say the following. Given a woman free from a husband, and under no control of father or any other person, if anyone approaches her with her consent, he does her no wrong, because she is pleased so to act, and has the disposal of her own person: Nor does it seem to be a sufficient answer to say that she wrongs God, for God is not offended by us except by what we do against our own good Chap.

We must seek a solution to the above arguments. It has been said Chap. Now it is good for everything to gain its end, and evil for it to be diverted from its proper end. But as it is with the whole so also is it with the parts; our position then should be that every part of man and every act of his may attain its proper end. Now though semen is superfluous for the preservation of the individual, yet it is necessary to him for the propagation of the species. Other excretions, such as excrement, urine, sweat, and the like, are needful for no further purpose: But that is not the object in the emission of semen, but rather the profit of generation, to which the union of the sexes is directed.

Further, the generation of man would be useless unless appropriate nurturing followed, without which the offspring generated could not survive. The emission of semen then ought to be directed so that both the proper generation may result and the education of the offspring be secured.

Hence it is clear that every emission of semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible. And if this is done on purpose, it must be a sin. That is, it is a sin when generation is impossible in itself as is the case in every emission of semen without the natural union of male and female. Likewise it must be against the good of man for semen to be emitted under conditions which, allowing generation to result, nevertheless prevent the proper education of the offspring. We observe that in those animals, dogs for instance, in which the female by herself suffices for the rearing of the offspring, the male and female stay no time together after the performance of the sexual act.

But with all animals in which the female by herself does not suffice for the rearing of the offspring, male and female dwell together after the sexual act so long as is necessary for the rearing and training of the offspring. This appears in birds, whose young are incapable of finding their own food immediately when they are hatched: Now in the human species the female is clearly insufficient of herself for the rearing of the offspring, since the need of human life makes many demands, which cannot be met by one parent alone.

Hence the fitness of human life requires man to stand by woman after the sexual act is done, and not to go off at once and form connections with anyone he meets, as is the way with fornicators. Nor is this reasoning evaded by the fact of some particular woman having wealth and power enough to nourish her offspring all by herself: A further consideration is, that in the human species the young need not only bodily nutrition, as animals do, but also the training of the soul. Other animals have their natural instincts to provide for themselves: Hence children need instruction by the confirmed experience of their parents: For this instruction again a long time is needed; and then moreover, because of the assaults of passion, whereby the judgment of prudence is thwarted, there is need not of instruction only, but also of repression.

For this purpose the woman by herself is not competent, but at this point especially there is required the accompaniment of the man, in whom there is at once reason more perfect to instruct, and force more potent to chastise. Therefore in the human race the advancement of the young in good must last, not for a short time, as in birds, but for a long period of life. This social tie we call marriage. Marriage then is natural to man, and an irregular connection outside of marriage is contrary to the good of man; and therefore fornication must be sinful. Hence, after the sin of murder, whereby a human nature already in actual existence is destroyed, this sort of sin seem to hold the second place, whereby the generation of human nature is precluded.

The above assertions are confirmed by divine authority. The unlawfulness of any emission of semen, upon which offspring cannot be consequent, is evident from such texts as these: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: Thou shalt not lie with any beast Levit. Nor the effeminate, nor sodomites, shall possess the kingdom of God 1 Cor.

There shall be no whore among the daughters of Israel, nor whoremonger among the sons of Israel: Keep thyself from all fornication, and beyond thine own wife suffer not the charge of knowing another Job. Fly fornication 1 Cor. Hereby is refuted the error of those who say that there is no more sin in the emission of semen than in the ejection of other superfluous products from the body.

Looking at the matter rightly, one must see that the above mentioned reasons not only support a long duration for that natural human partnership of male and female, which we call marriage, but further imply that the partnership ought to be lifelong. Property is a means to the preservation of human life.

And because natural life cannot be preserved in one and the same person of the father living on for all time, nature arranges for its preservation by the son succeeding his father in likeness of species. For this reason, it is appropriate that the son should succeed his father in his property. Woman is taken into partnership with man for the need of childbearing: If then a man, taking a woman to wife in the time of her youth, when beauty and fertility remain with her, could send her away when she was advanced in years, he would do the woman harm, contrary to natural equity.

It is manifestly absurd for the woman to be able to send away the man, seeing that woman is naturally subject to the rule of man, and it is not in the power of a subject to run away from control. Men show a natural anxiety to be sure of their own offspring; and whatever stands in the way of that assurance runs counter to the natural instinct of the race. But if the man could send away the woman, or the woman the man, and form a connection with another, certainty as to parentage would be difficult, when a woman had intercourse first with one man and then with another.

One general reason holds for all animals, which is this, that every animal desires free enjoyment of the pleasure of sexual union as of eating: But in men there is a special reason, inasmuch as man naturally desires to be sure of his own offspring. But here a difference comes in. Both of the above mentioned reasons hold for the case of the cohabitation of one female with several males: But the first reason makes against it: In every species of animal in which the father takes any interest in the offspring, one male keeps company with one female only, as in all birds that rear their young in common: The reason why a wife is not allowed more than one husband at a time is because otherwise paternity would be uncertain.

If then while the wife has one husband only, the husband has more than one wife, there will not be a friendship of equality on both sides, friendship consisting in a certain equality. There will not be the friendship of a free man with a free woman, but a sort of friendship of a slave with her master. The husband might well be allowed a plurality of wives, if the understanding were allowable, that the friendship of each with him was not to be that of a free woman with a free man but of a slave with her master.

• Super Searchers on Competitive Intelligence: The Online and Offline Secrets of Top CI Researchers (Super Searchers series).
• Full Disclosure: A Step Towards Marital Restoration After Sexual Addiction or Adultery?
• Hill Country Cattleman (Mills & Boon Love Inspired Historical) (Brides of Simpson Creek, Book 6)?
• Dinosaur Cove Cretaceous 5: Catching the Speedy Thief (Dinosaur Cove Cretaceous Series).
• Kevin And Noah Hatch An Egg.
• Navigation menu.

And this is borne out by experience: From one man having several wives there arises domestic discord, as experience shows. Since in marriage there is a union of different persons, those persons who ought to consider themselves as one because of their being of one stock, are properly excluded from intermarrying, that they may love one another more ardently on the mere ground of their common origin.

Since the intercourse of man and wife carries with it a certain natural shame, those persons should be prevented from such intercourse who owe one another a mutual reverence on account of the tie of blood. And this is the reason touched on in Leviticus Excessive indulgence in sexual pleasures makes for the corruption of good manners: But such excessive indulgence would result, if the intercourse of the sexes were allowed among persons who must necessarily dwell under the same roof, where the occasion of such intercourse could not be withdrawn.

In human society the widening of friendships is of the first importance. That is done by the marriage tie being formed with strangers. This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.

Marriage Choice inherent in Individual Autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make.

The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation. There is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices. This point was central to Griswold v. Connecticut , which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.

Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions. And in Turner , the Court again acknowledged the intimate association protected by this right, holding prisoners could not be denied the right to marry because their committed relationships satisfied the basic reasons why marriage is a fundamental right. Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other.

As this Court held in Lawrence , same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association. Lawrence invalidated laws that made same-sex intimacy a criminal act. But while Lawrence confirmed a dimension of freedom that allows individuals to engage in intimate association without criminal liability, it does not follow that freedom stops there. Outlaw to outcast may be a step forward, but it does not achieve the full promise of liberty. Right to Marry Safeguards Children and Families.

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: But marriage also confers more profound benefits.

As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families. This is dinner topic fun! Read it and discuss it with friends!

Publisher's Summary

This book is so bad I returned it after giving an hour of my life. The narrator has a voice that should be reading the news, not a book. The author has a large vocabulary with which he re-hashes every sexist prejudice you can think of: Women want babies as much as men want sex according to this moron.

Read Jesse Bering's Perv instead. Get it free with day trial. Publisher's Summary Obscene Thoughts: No Reviews are Available. Most Helpful Most Recent. Outdated, Wrong, and Machine Narrated Trainwreck First of all, this is machine text-to-speech, not narrated by the author.

Nussbaum adds that Dworkin has focused attention on the proper moral target by making harm associated with subordination, not obscenity, civilly actionable. Nevertheless, Nussbaum opposes the adoption of Dworkin's pornography ordinance because it 1 fails to distinguish between moral and legal violations, 2 fails to demonstrate a causal relationship between pornography and specific harm, 3 holds a creator of printed images or words responsible for others' behavior, 4 grants censorial power to the judiciary which may be directed against feminist scholarship , and 5 erases the contextual considerations within which sex takes place.

More broadly, Nussbaum faults Dworkin for 1 occluding economic injustice through an "obsessive focus on sexual subordination", 2 reproducing objectification in reducing her interlocutors to their abuse, and 3 refusing reconciliation in favor of "violent extralegal resistance against male violence".

Dworkin authored ten books of radical feminist theory and numerous speeches and articles, each designed to assert the presence of and denounce institutionalized and normalized harm against women. She became one of the most influential writers and spokeswomen of American radical feminism during the late s and the s.

She discussed prostitution as a system of exploitation, and intercourse as a key site of subordination in patriarchy. Gloria Steinem repeatedly compared her style to that of the Biblical prophets; [] [] Susan Brownmiller recalls her Take Back the Night speech in Saturday evening culminated in a candlelit "Take Back the Night" march the first of its kind through the porn district, kicked off by an exhortation by Andrea Dworkin.

I'd seen Andrea in my living room, but this was the first time I'd seen Andrea in action. On the spot, I dubbed her Rolling Thunder. Perspiring in her trademark denim coveralls, she employed the rhetorical cadences that would make her both a cult idol and an object of ridicule a few years later. Dworkin's dramatized martyrdom and revival-tent theatrics never sat well with me, but I retained my respect for her courage long after I absented myself from the pornography wars.

Her call to action accomplished, three thousand demonstrators took to the streets. Many of Dworkin's early speeches are reprinted in her second book, Our Blood Later selections of speeches were reprinted ten and twenty years later, in Letters from a War Zone and Life and Death She maintained some political communication with the political right wing. She authored the book Right-Wing Women , reviewed as premised on agreement between feminists and right-wing women on the existence of domination by men in sex and class, but disagreement on strategy.

She had a political discourse with National Review writer David Frum and their spouses arranged by Christopher Hitchens. Her attitude and language often sharply polarized debate, and made Dworkin herself a figure of intense controversy. After her death, the conservative [] gay writer Andrew Sullivan claimed that "Many on the social right liked Andrea Dworkin. Like Dworkin, their essential impulse when they see human beings living freely is to try and control or stop them — for their own good. Like Dworkin, they are horrified by male sexuality, and see men as such as a problem to be tamed.

Like Dworkin, they believe in the power of the state to censor and coerce sexual freedoms. Like Dworkin, they view the enormous new freedom that women and gay people have acquired since the s as a terrible development for human culture. Other feminists, however, published sympathetic or celebratory memorials online and in print. Where the physical appearance of male writers is regarded as irrelevant or cherished as a charming eccentricity, Andrea's was reviled and mocked and turned into pornography. When she sued for libel, courts trivialized the pornographic lies as fantasy and dignified them as satire".

Dworkin's reports of violence suffered at the hands of men sometimes aroused skepticism, the most famous example being the public controversy over her allegations of being drugged and raped in Paris. In , Dworkin wrote an article about her life as a battered wife in the Netherlands, "What Battery Really Is", in response to fellow radical feminist Susan Brownmiller , who had argued that Hedda Nussbaum , a battered woman, should have been indicted for her failure to stop Joel Steinberg from murdering their adoptive daughter.

Newsweek initially accepted "What Battery Really Is" for publication, but then declined to publish the account at the request of their attorney, according to Dworkin, arguing that she needed either to publish anonymously "to protect the identity of the batterer" and remove references to specific injuries, or to provide "medical records, police records, a written statement from a doctor who had seen the injuries".

Instead, Dworkin submitted the article to the Los Angeles Times , which published it on March 12, Some critics, such as Larry Flynt 's magazine Hustler [] and Gene Healy, [] allege that Dworkin endorsed incest. In the closing chapter of Woman Hating , Dworkin wrote that, "The parent—child relationship is primarily erotic because all human relationships are primarily erotic", and that, "The incest taboo, because it denies us essential fulfillment with the parents whom we love with our primary energy, forces us to internalize those parents and constantly seek them.

The incest taboo does the worst work of the culture The destruction of the incest taboo is essential to the development of cooperative human community based on the free-flow of natural androgynous eroticism". Dworkin's work from the early s onward contained frequent condemnations of incest and pedophilia as one of the chief forms of violence against women, arguing once that "incest is terrifically important in understanding the condition of women. It is a crime committed against someone, a crime from which many victims never recover".

Other critics, especially women who identify as feminists but sharply differ with Dworkin's style or positions, have offered nuanced views, suggesting that Dworkin called attention to real and important problems, but that her legacy as a whole had been destructive to the women's movement. Dworkin also attracted criticism from sex-positive feminists , in what became known as the feminist sex wars of the late s and s.

A Pornographer's Perspective on Sex, Love & Dating | The Rob Aguilar Show

The sex wars were a series of heated debates which polarized feminist thought on a number of issues relating to sex and sexuality. Sex-positive feminist critics criticized Dworkin's legal activism as censorious, and argued that her work on pornography and sexuality promoted an essentialist, conservative, or repressive view of sexuality, which they often characterized as "anti-sex" or "sex-negative".

Her criticisms of common heterosexual sexual expression, pornography, prostitution, and sadomasochism were frequently claimed to disregard women's own agency in sex, or to deny women's sexual choices. Dworkin countered that her critics often misrepresented her views, [] and that under the heading of "choice" and "sex-positivity", her feminist critics were failing to question the often violent political structures that confined women's choices and shaped the meaning of sex acts.

In addition to books, articles, and speeches listed here, she wrote for anthologies, and wrote additional articles, and some of her works were translated into other languages. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Dworkin appearing on British television discussion programme After Dark in May Camden, New Jersey , U. Radical feminism anti-pornography activism anti-prostitution activism. Cornelius Dirk de Bruin m. The Political Memoir of a Feminist Militant, Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance. Memoir of a Revolution , — Biography portal Feminism portal United States portal.

Retrieved 10 June Andrea Dworkin , in New York Press , vol. Vincent, Norah, Sex, Love and Politics , op. Accessed October 29, On the 'In Memory' board with 54 other deceased classmates was Andrea Dworkin, the feminist known for her writings against pornography. The New York Times. Retrieved February 4, Videotape Collection of Andrea Dworkin, — Inclusive: A Finding Aid Cambridge, Mass.: Retrieved July 11, National Organization for Men Against Sexism. Archived from the original on 3 June Retrieved July 5, Letters from a War Zone. Contemporary Authors Autobiography Series, Vol.

Retrieved October 18, The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 4, The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine. Andrea Dworkin Online Library. Retrieved July 8, Archived from the original on August 3, Retrieved August 20, Roberts April 27, Archived from the original on January 13, Archived from the original on 4 June Archived from the original on 29 May Writings Banned in Canada.

Feral House Books, Retrieved July 18, Retrieved July 12, An Interview with John Stoltenberg". Archived from the original on 15 June Memoir of a Revolution. The New Politics of Pornography. University of Chicago Press. Dworkin, Andrea , "Pornography is a civil rights issue: Writings, , New York: Available to view online as: Retrieved 22 August Attorney General's Commission on Pornography.

Archived from the original on April 20,