PORN STAR COMES OUT … AS A LIBERTARIAN
By FITSNEWS || James Deen (a.k.a. Bryan Matthew Sevilla) is one of America’s most well-known male pornographic actors. Or so we’ve been told … (we don’t watch those sorts of films).
According to The Daily Beast, Deen is also a raging libertarian – and the foremost advocate for your First Amendment right not to wear a condom on screen.
Wait … what? Yup. According to Deen, freedom of speech extends to his genitalia – hence his strident opposition to a California law mandating the use of condoms on the sets of adult movies.
To Deen, the California law is “equivalent to violating performers’ civil rights.” And we agree.
Sex with multiple partners – on or off camera – is inherently risky behavior. And anyone who engages in such behavior should know that. And knowing that, should they fail to take the necessary precautions, well … that’s on them. However if consenting adults wish to engage in sexual activities without using condoms – especially in the pursuit of gainful employment – then that’s entirely their business. And none of the government’s business.
Deen is correct. The First Amendment protects his right not to wear a condom on set. As ridiculous as that sounds, it does.
Deen is also adamantly against “affirmative consent” laws, in which it college campuses are denied funding unless they apply a new standard of consensual sexual activity – one in which both participants make on the record acknowledgements of their interest in pursuing specific sexual acts.
“That is the dumbest f*cking law I’ve ever heard of,” he told The Daily Beast. “We already have a law against rape. Just don’t f*cking rape people. We can’t throw a law at it and think it’s going to solve it.”
Exactly …
Take “hate crimes.” Murder is already murder … why are we further criminalizing something that’s already inherently wrong?
Deen says America has become “a terrorist country” – one in which an increasingly large and unruly federal government is “stepping on civil liberties.”
Anyway, sounds like Deen is one of those Americans looking for fresh electoral options.
***
28 comments
If the chicks he’s doing on screen look like the one with him in the pic, I don’t blame him. I wouldn’t use a damn condom, either. I like “the feel of real”, too much.
You can’t overemphasize the positive effect on the South made by the sheep skin condom.
Okay, look. When you’re really excited about a political platform that isn’t mainstream, and you want to get more people to look into it and/or support it, obviously the first thing you want to do is find someone who is kinda-sorta famous for something to represent it. Not too uptight, not to prestigious, someone the masses can kind of relate to, right? The kind of person that can be set as an “example” of how a decent, upstanding member of society should be standing up to the status quo. Someone most people can look up to and say, “This country needs more of THAT guy!”
I don’t think most people would pick a porn star to be THAT guy.
You are right unfortunately, the messenger is killing the message. The idea that libertarianism(or L) is all about sex, drugs, & rock-n-roll is perpetuated when guys like this speak up…even if they are right…it doesn’t matter because a segment of the population says, “Shut up porn star.” in their minds.
When I watch my dogs, I sometimes see them engage in behavior that conveys to me that they have a sense of fair play. When I feed them a treat together, however, the smaller dog will try to get the treat by nosing the bigger dog out of the way. And he will repeat this same behavior even when he has a fresh treat just acquired, firmly in his mouth. That is, the next treat should go to the other dog while he’s eating his, but he drops the one he has to get the new treat. The larger dog will give way, and let the smaller dog get the second treat, and slowly move towards the dropped treat. If I don’t intervene, eventually the smaller dog will eat both treats. When this happens, I give the bigger dog a third treat, which the smaller dog goes after in the same way as before, but now there are two dropped treats. The smaller dog, wanting to eat just marginally less than getting more treats, will then see that if he finishes the treat in his mouth, there will still be one even though the bigger dog gets one. That ends the struggle for monopoly, but the little one sometimes gets the third treat as well. The larger dog will always give way, I think, because she realizes I will see to it that she gets something to eat. I’m sure something different would happen if the larger dog were to get seriously hungry….
I see similar things played out when children play. Everyone knows some children share, and some children have to be taught to share. Sharing seems to me to be a key to enlightened living, and an essential part of what I believe it means to be human. When I see a child who refuses adamantly to share, I think to myself that child is a “bad” child, and will grow up to be a “bad” adult. It seems to be a shameful existence to me, a waste. I suppose there are some parents who encourage their children not to share, but those bastards aside, it seems that the majority of children who turn out that way are either been untrainable, or neglected. He will grow up to be a Libertarian, or a Republican.. or worse. What? Wait! What am I saying? What could be worse than that? I guess it seemed to follow in a literary sense to say “or worse.”
When these children grow up to be adults, and their mental capabilities mature, they seem to acquire coping mechanisms to explain their refusal to “play nice.” It seems to me that what I perceive as a character flaw in these children become adults, manifests itself later in life as materialism. As a group, of what I see as malformed adults, they gravitate politically towards a philosophy that basically answers all questions with unabashed selfishness. When justification is required to get what they want, they will invariably start with their goal, and adapt logic to fit whatever it is, much as children do “..but mark’s parents don’t make HIM wash HIS hands!” Their goal always before them, their logic will change no matter how hypocritical it may seem, or how transparent their true motives become, though they will deny that they have ever been either hypocritical or dissembling. “I didn’t take the cookies out of the cookie jar – it must have been daddy!” “I didn’t rip her dress, but she said I was ugly, so even if I had, she deserved it!”
Among the smoke screens for these flaws.
Enlightened self interest.
Survival of the fittest.
Social Darwinism
Capitalism.
Free Competition.
Of course, the idea is that it’s “obvious” that more for the individual is better, often without even bothering to veil disdain for “losers.”
It seems to me that these bad adults have grown to use those coping mechanisms so often, that they fall into an easily characterized group of people who can be manipulated without too much trouble, to support the idea that selfishness is a noble and respected way to live… even when it is, statistically, they who are the victims of the philosophy they espouse at the moment. They identify with what they own, or have just purchased, and seem to derive self worth from it. Sometimes, they identify with what others own. They are all too willing to listen in envy to those with “Bragging Rights.”
Bragging seems to be a common characteristic, even when it makes them look foolish in social situations, since they can always find someone who engages in similar behaviors to validate them. Morality becomes a thin veneer in cases where “morality” becomes an issue. Similarly, wrapping themselves in the flag, and lionizing the constitution is a cheap coat of paint and a deodorizer for the steaming pile of shit that is “enlightened self interest.”
It’s not about drugs, sex or rock ‘n roll – because those things can be shared – it’s about selfishness, and the desire to be free of law and social responsibility.
If someone is truly “selfish”, yes there is a problem. Not wanting to share the bounty of your labors with any and everyone is often just good common sense. With any of us (at least those who are honest about it), job #1 is taking care of us and our family, other loved ones, and friends, first and foremost. If we can reasonably accommodate it, then we think about what we can do for others. If you are taking your mom, wife, or kid, to the hospital because they have a serious injury, you are not going to have time to stop and help the person on the side of the road change a tire. If you are driving by yourself and not on the way to work or other important obligation, stopping to help that person on the side of the road is a decent and good gesture.
There is nothing wrong with not wanting to give your hard-earned money to some governmental or private bureaucracy to fritter away on things that some self-important twit in that bureaucracy thinks would be a great idea, since they aren’t spending their own money. Whether something like Richland or Lexington County Councils or the United Way, if your perception is that any money you give them will likely be squandered and not spent wisely, especially when you struggle to meet the needs of yourself and your own family, you are totally correct and right in fighting efforts by entities such as these to remove money from your wallet that you don’t really have to spare. I see no shame in such an attitude or course of action. Charity begins at home!
A lot of people who resist siphoning of their resources into projects that someone else thinks is a great way for others’ (but not their own) money to be spent, do share generously with people who are in need when they can afford to and when they think their generosity will have a lasting effect or is truly needed in the moment. The hype or drunk who comes up and wants $1 or $5 (obviously toward their next fix or drink) will not likely get it from me. The same person, if they appear to truly be starving might get $10 or more for a meal, or have it bought for them, on another day. Giving your resources to every person that asks for them, most of us would be broke and homeless ourselves in short order, without some measure of judgment applied as to when, where, and who, we give to. I am often criticized for tipping too generously but realize that the people waiting on me in a restaurant or bringing me a pizza depend on those tips as part of their income.
Regarding the braggarts, you are spot on with the way they sound and look. I know people like that and they are quite boorish, to put it nicely.
Not only would any attempt to remove “selfishness”, or self interest, mostly fail if attempted by anyone/anything…there’s the conundrum of what entity itself would be available to do it in an unselfish way…it’s an impossibility.
IMO, it’s man selfishness that also drives him to accomplish things, so it’s a double edged sword as well as being a condition of humanity.
The best you can hope for is an environment is such that one man can’t gain disproportionate control over another, one under which selfish man can at least engage in voluntary transaction so as to avoid those that may try to harm him out of their own self interest.
Gov’t is a unify force of power and control over man, and I agree that all men are self interested, which is why gov’t is a horrible idea.
It turns out that the chick in the picture above is his girlfriend, Stoya. If he’s got a woman that looks like that on a regular basis, he is definitely doing something in his life right. I say, “lead on brother”!
“we don’t watch those sorts of films”
I call bullshit.
I think he meant that in a humorous way.
I think he meant in front of his wife and kids.
Oh, then who is the rest of “we”?
little sic
you said not in front of his kids
his other head.
heh! heh!
FITS – I know most government regulation offends your libertarian sensibilities, but how is requiring condoms for porn stars any different than other legitimate health regulations for businesses like requiring hair nets & gloves at restaurants? Do I have a First Amendment right not to wear a hair net if I work at Burger King?
A truck driver was eating in a greasy spoon diner one night and found a hair in his noodle soup. He began to raise holy hell and eventually the woman who owned it agreed that he would not pay for his meal and he left. She saw him walking to the whore house (no, not the Governor’s Mansion this time) across the street and decided to wait a few minutes and walk in as she had an idea what he was up to. Sure enough, she walked in on him with his head nearly buried in a woman’s gash.
The diner’s proprietor started yelling at him, “You ass hole. You raised so much hell about finding one damn hair in your noodle soup and now look at you, buried almost to your shoulders in a hair pie!!!!!”
The truck driver replied, “Lady, if I find a noodle in this, I’m going to raise ten times as much hell as I did in your diner.”
Nothing spells class like a commenter on FITSNEWS.
Dude, if you came is search of “class” your information was bad.
apples and oranges – the guy’s not serving the public.
Dude’s got a great rug.
who’s the girl?
IDK, but she’s pretty hot.
Stoya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoya
I just looked at some of her work. Man! She’s white as a sheet!
…but hot as hell!!!!
There are so many sizes and styles of condoms,now,the pharmacy should have a fitting room.Monogamy has its advantages.