San Francisco Blog

Kink.com is also training producers of evangelical outreach films for churches. Film production is film production.

I have read the article by Matt Smith as well as the responses by the readers. I have yet to see any responses to posts, except the above response by Mr. Smith. I find it ironic that Mr. Smith is waiting to be contacted by the writer of the pamphlet, when he neglected to contact the employees and models for Kink.com.
I am married to one of their models, and know that she got into modeling for them to fulfill her fantasies. She was also very excited to get paid for things she already participates in. She has worked for the Wiredpussy.com, Devicebondage.com, SexandSubmission.com, TrainingofO and Pissing.com. She has enjoyed each of these experiences, and continues to work for Kink, whenever they hire her.
Mr. Smith's characterization of the models for Kink as individuals who are coerced into porn and unable to make decisions for themselves due to economic hardship is belied by the facts. I have had the pleasure of meeting many of the models for Kink and found them to be intelligent, well spoken and goal directed.
I understand that the request for information was Mr. Smith’s right, but his gloating regarding the result and biased research methods cause me to believe he is a poor example of a journalist. If the Weekly wishes to continue to be regarded as reliable source of information, they need to examine the hiring practices, and determine if the writers they hire are researches or self glorifying gossip columnists.

Repeating fallacies that have already been thoroughly debunked elsewhere does not make them true.

"California taxpayers have spent nearly $50,000" - Wild distortion. Employers and employees pay into this fund automatically with payroll taxes. Including those who work at Kink.

"torture-themed porn at Kink.com" - As previously noted, the term torture implies lack of consent, something that does not happen at Kink.com. You knew that, but deliberately chose to ignore that fact in writing your inflammatory article.

Also, responding in an infantile fashion to a professional courtesy call for an interview doesn't increase your journalistic credibility one bit.

This response is in keeping with the original article.

Apparently, Matt truly is as unwilling to deal with reality when it doesn't fit his little world as he showed in his carefully tailored piece of "journalism". (Finding exactly the most incendiary "expert" in the area and concealing her anti-pornography crusade arrests shows deliberate premeditation, not sloppy work - I'll give him that much).

This is your wake up call, buddy. The outrage you saw in response to your article is not an orchestrated attack by your favorite paper to hate, SFBG. It comes from US - San Francisco community. From 400,000 of us who were at Folsom Street Fair last year.

I hope that your publisher is less myopic than you are, and capable of weighing the buying power of that number of people against your self-serving ego trip. Your sneering response is certainly not helping their bottom line.

Hmm. I used to be a Weekly fan, far more preferred than Guardian.

Oh well. Bay Guardian gets my business now. Why would I want to read a paper with such biased, sloppy, and incorrect reporting? It's not the first time, but this is beyond the pale. This piece actually hurts people who are trying to learn lucrative skills.

Newsflash: porn is eternal. Like it or not, you will never be able to get rid of it. Never.

It seems to me the so-called open-minded adherents of the BDSM lifestyle need to take a deep breath -- probably should remove the ballgag beforehand, and take off the blinders/blindfold/horse bit -- and reexamine Smith's piece.

The story is thus: that California taxpayers funded Kink.com operations with Employment Training Panel funds through the Bay Area Video Coalition, even though the ETP does not fund adult-themed media. The BAVC didn't bother to tell the ETP that it gave money to Kink.com -- which leads to the main thrust o the article: "Does the state's refusal to train porn-makers violate constitutional free-speech guarantees?" Over half of the article is spent answering that question, through legal experts, and, yes, anti-porn crusader Melissa Farley, but also a spokeswoman for the adult industry. Seems to me like both sides are presented.

But instead of weighing in on the issue -- is it fair for the state to fund some employment practices (like, say, slaughtering animals at a farm) and not others (like, say, simulating torture and/or gang-rape for peoples' sexual arousal) -- we have a bunch of whining about what an unfair, biased, etc. etc. portrayal of Kink.com's product Matt Smith's piece was, i.e. a steaming pile of childish semantic bullshit from people who ought to know better. "It's not torture porn it's... consensual torture porn!" Wah wah wah. Give me a break -- and guess what? Whether or not it's fair and equal under the law (which is again the main question at hand) I don't want my taxpayer money funding multimedia training for the adult industry. If Kink.com is hard up for cash, maybe they shouldn't have bought one of the biggest buildings in town during a real estate bubble. Put that in your ... er... pussy and electrify it? Whatever.

Rusty thinks Matt Smith should know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. And get counseling, because those self-meds aren't working.

Why are you so obsessed with what the Guardian thinks of you. If you were a real journalist you might have more to write about than when you get a call from another local paper (and then refuse to be interviewed)

The SF Weekly is sad and you should be ashamed of yourself.