Follow by Email

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Pornstar to President? It Could Happen...

           A lot of people are going to disagree with me on this one, especially the conservatives, but I don’t see why participation in porn should automatically bar someone from politics. We’re all people and porn is a legal occupation, a completely legitimate form of work that provides taxes to the US government. There is clearly a demand for porn, so why can’t any willing and able person benefit from the production of such adult content. I think that having done porn should be viewed by employers the same way sexual orientation is; you can’t be overlooked for a raise or fired based on that information alone.  Yes, it will always be a part of that person’s history, but that doesn’t me that the experience has damaged him/her for life or made them any less productive in their current occupation.
            Pornstars can go on to be Broadway actors, accountants, barbers, teachers, parents, and even policemen (eg. Michael Verdugo) because society has no reason to defer them as valuable members of the community. If you allow porn to be purchased, then you need actors to perform in them, and why would you punish them for providing that service. Worldwide, porn generates 97 billion dollar industry (see source).
            Also, we seem to forget all the people who have “slipped-up” doing porn when they were younger and still went on to do great things… no presidents yet,  but the list does include big name actors like Colin Ferrell, Sylvester Stallone, Jackie Chan, and Cameron Diaz… and not to mention, California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger (see source). Where do we draw the line?
            Now female ex-pornstar, Stormy Daniels is running for Senator of Louisiana. Obviously, her views and integrity will be held to a higher standard because of her past, but all the power to her if she’s good enough. As long as the candidate is open and honest about their past, then they have nothing to fear and neither do people who vote for them. Sex happens between people all the time, so why should doing so in front of a camera mean you’re useless to any other sector of the economy. And if some can get away with it, then why shouldn't everyone? Maybe it's society's view on sexuality that's messed up and not the people who participate in materialization of that demand. Maybe.

Monday, July 25, 2011

My Blood's Not Good Enough!?

          One of the most traumatizing events of my adolescent life was when I was denied the ability to donate blood for the Red Cross. It was during Greek Week and I was donating blood for a competition, but also because I've donated blood before and it’s a good thing to do. Last time I had donated, however, was in high school and I'm pretty sure I lied about sleeping with guys just because I didn't want anyone to over hear (this was before I had come out). This time, I flat out answered question #24 "yes" in response to "If you are a male, have you ever had sexual relations with another man?" When the lady looking over my paper work asked me, are you sure about your answer to number #24, I said sure and thought nothing of it. She suddenly looked very quite and sad. "I'm sorry but your blood will be thrown out based on your answer to #24.
          I was shocked, hurt, in disbelief that such an organization as the American Red Cross could be so discriminating in their blood selection. I've been tested several times, and I am well aware that I am perfectly clean, but what about the heterosexuals carrying HIV and other blood born diseases that are not so keen on getting tested? Do they seriously not even test other people's blood? This one CNN article from a year ago addresses the issue, pointing out that a straight male only has to wait a year after having sex with a prostitute before the Red Cross will accept his blood for donation. Sounds kind of silly to me.
          Yes, I'm aware that gay men in America, and especially the cities, have a higher chance of carrying such STD's, but that does not warrant the deferral of our blood just because I have sex with men. Condoms have been proven to significantly reduce the risk of STD transmittance, reduce it to the point where I have a much lower chance of catching something than my straight friends who rarely wear condoms. Maybe they should be testing everyone when they give blood, wouldn't that be a great way to get tested and do something good for society. Just a thought… Wirthmore thought.