Advertising

[Justice]

There was a facinating article in the Business Section of the New York times about a week or so ago. It dealt with the moral/ethical dilemma faced by executives of mainstream publications like New York Magazine that run ads for "roleplaying", escort services and "dream dates" etc. Every executive that they interviewed more or less danced around issue, stating that it was a business decision. (Several mentioned that the ads don't generate that much revenue, but I don't by that for a minute. I guessing that these ads generate a fairly steady (and significant) income. Another reason why it should be legal, but that's the subject for another thread.) On the down side, the Times also interviewed a spokesperson for Guiliani who noted that both the police and health departments monitored the ads -- both gay and straight -- and used them to set up appointments for sting operations. The spokesperson also noted that they also used internet based advertising for the same purpose.

[Guest fedssocr]

There was an interesting program on MSNBC late last night about the sex industry. Of course they interviewed the moronic Lou Sheldon and some chick from the Family Research Council. I think they're just jealous because no one would ever consider having sex with them. Basically the program was about the adult video industry and then they talked about "escorts" advertising on the Net and how the cops in LA would go after the internet advertisers if they had any assurance that the DA would actually file charges. Of course the whole thing dealt with straight porn and women escorts. I'm always disappointed that they never deal with gay pron or gay escorts, but maybe I should be happy they don't bring it up. They estimated that thousnads of women in the LA area advertise on the net for their escort services. Of course the 'family values' people want to outlaw all hardcore porn and eliminate it from the Net! Obviously there's a pretty big audience out there and I think they'd have a pretty hard time shutting the industry down at this point.

[Guest pickwick]

So what's your point?

[Justice]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-24-01 AT 00:09AM (EST)[p]>There was an interesting program on

>MSNBC late last night about

>the sex industry. Of course

>they interviewed the moronic Lou

>Sheldon and some chick from

>the Family Research Council. I

>think they're just jealous because

>no one would ever consider

>having sex with them.

 

You got that right!

 

>the program was about the

>adult video industry and then

>they talked about "escorts" advertising

>on the Net and how

>the cops in LA would

>go after the internet advertisers

>if they had any assurance

>that the DA would actually

>file charges.

 

I wish that the authorities felt that way in EVERY jurisdiction. There have been reports of internet based police stings against gay escorts in New York, Las Vegas, and San Diego. :'( x(

 

>Of course the 'family

>values' people want to outlaw

>all hardcore porn and eliminate

>it from the Net! Obviously

>there's a pretty big audience

>out there and I think

>they'd have a pretty hard

>time shutting the industry down

>at this point.

 

I wouldn't put ANYTHING past Bush. (Guiliani is waging an ongoing war against adult entertainment in New York and its a mere shadow of what it used to be.) x(

[Guest MattAdams]

Advertising and editorial policies are always very interesting. The problem is that publishers are really just amateur whores and could use some professional advice.

 

Many of the major gay publications skirt the issue by offering two publications...one for the true whores and another for the wannabes.

 

Most of the alternative papers do not have that problem...they treat all whores the same and allow them to advertise in the same paper.

 

The Internet is even more fascinating. AOL up until a few years ago even had ads for escorts through the Rainbow something or other. Although AOL has cracked down on professional whores since they are unfair competition to those giving it away the herds seem to be growing on plains.

 

Now on gay.com the fact that you are explicit in terms of what you want sexually causes no problems with the thought police. However, if you state that you want money to consummate the relationship then you will have a cookie sent to your computer to prevent you from ever returning to gay.com again.

 

I am always amused by these elite gays that try to make people believe being gay is not about sex but rather about just having good taste in clothes. The Advocate is so good at positioning itself as the Time of the gay world yet distributes...well, smut and pornography that cannot be shipped to Utah.

 

Speaking of Time (now Time Warner AOL)...and let's just add General Motors who owns Hughs who owns Direct TV and AT&T that has moved from the phone sex business to cable...well I dont want to burst anyone's illusion that these three great organizations would have anything to do with sex...but all three are among the largest distributors of pornography through their cable and satellite operations....all those operators taking your order for pay for view. And guess what? All of those people being streamed into your living room were...well, they were paid to have sex and you are paying for them to have sex albeit after the fact. I guess if you pay someone to have sex in real time that is bad...but if you pay General Motors after the fact then it is as good as...well you got it...baseball, apple pie and chevrolet.