boards for downloading "full-motion video clips," and an introduction service for amateur fans.
A booth to my left promoted sex toys; on my right, a woman reached into a huge goldfish bowl full of condoms and handed them out to passersby. (Coin-sized and wrapped in gold foil, they reminded me of the chocolates I used to love as a child.) Interactive computer displays flashed porn with low resolution and a low update rate-ten or fifteen frames a second. Another booth distributed mock samples of "Prepaid Private Issue Calling Cards." The purchaser of such a card simply dialed an 800 access number, gave his authorization code, and was able to dial a list of sex phone lines. No phone calls showed up on his home or company phone bill.
Next I stopped at the Adult Video News (AVN) booth to ask about a matter that perplexed me.
AVN is the trade publication for video porn. In the table of contents of the January issue, an article entitled "I've Finished My Calls, So . . ." was listed on page 20. A subtext described the article: "Our esteemed publisher comments on some of the less esteemed people in the adult entertainment business." The idea of the industry regulating itself by exposing malfeasance was interesting. But page 20 consisted of an advertisement. No article with that title appeared elsewhere.
A man at the AVN booth told me that the article had been yanked so quickly there had been no time to change the table of contents. Further inquiry resulted in a brush-off. I asked people at other booths to speculate about the matter. According to the best-informed source, the article was about a porn producer known for writing rubber checks. It was disappointing that the magazine was unwilling or unable to expose fraud.
THE STICKY ISSUE OF SADOMASOCHISM
The most prominent type of pornography at the convention seemed to be fetish porn, especially S/M and dominance. In one booth, women role-played at dominance and submission, using soft whips and other equipment. As I watched, I started to get upset-not because I thought the women were coerced or psychologically damaged, but because I don't like even "mock" humiliation.
And I was bothered by the reaction of the men. At one point, a producer from a public access station asked one of the women to "perform" so he could film her. She crouched down on her knees, her ass jutting into the air. With the hand farthest from the camera, she raised a whip and flicked it down across her backside, all the while moaning to herself to "do it harder." The producer kept shifting his position to get a better angle, or, maybe, just a better look.
This is my clearest memory of the convention and it never fails to disturb me. I am convinced that the woman performed of her own free will and that she was not physically harmed. She appeared to be enjoying herself. I am also convinced that my sexual preferences and reactions are no more natural than anyone else's. Nevertheless, a sinking feeling always accompanies this vivid memory.
In sorting through S/M videos and publications, I tried to answer three questions: 1. Did the action look staged?
Invariably, it did. A few magazines showed photos of bruised women, but the marks were clearly makeup, with only one bruise vaguely resembling the real thing. There was one exception: the spanking magazines-usually imported from Britain-showed asses that seemed sincerely red.
More than anything, the S/M magazines seemed campy.
2. Did the men tend to dominate the women, or vice versa?
23
I saw about twice as many cases of women dominating men than the reverse. For example, one of Bizarre Video's June releases was Mistresses at War, with the subtext, "A slave is torn between two dueling mistresses. Where does his loyalty lie?"
3. How far did the mock violence go?
The violence was restrained and less graphic than can be seen in many studio releases. Common sights included: someone in chains or wearing a collar; hair pulling; women with fearful expressions;
Shauna Rice-Schober[thriller]