As a self professed hypocrite, you neither intimidate me nor have any credibility whatsoever. Admitting you are a hypocrite is definitely the definition of insanity-doing something you know is stupid, yet you do it anyway.

Exactly what you want to intimidate me from doing…well you do a piss poor job of that.

You provide absolutely zero evidence to back up your point…or lack of one.

Since I do not work in the adult industry, exactly what are you trying to stop me from doing? You made an assumtion about me, therefore your entire analysis is based on what you think, not facts. Above average consumtion of porn? Okay-what’s the average?

By not defining any of the parameters you use to make such assumptions, yes I dismiss your entire arguement. That leaves just you-a self promoting, absorbed person that tries to make a point without any facts to back up his arguement. In your own words, you “offer suggestions” and “reasonably assume” then say because Mike doesn’t try and defend himself that proves your arguement.

Sorry Goodwill-can’t argue with stupid. Go find some facts,statistics or something….redo your entire analysis, and then submit it. try NOT assuming or suggesting or implying, or anything but stating factual basis for your point. Then it’s a discussion.

If you think my previous statements were an attack on you personally, well you only left that as an option because you have no foundation for any kind of a discussion. Again-can’t debate assumtions and suggestions.

Oh and btw….you are so not intimidating.

One mother said she spent $3000 on costumes, hair extensions and fake teeth for her child. Then she said, “She really showed the judges what she’s made of.” Sad, that at such a young age, the mother is teaching her child that she is the sum total of her looks. They even made the comment that buying costumes at WalMart was “not good enough”. So she’s also learning to be high maintenance.

The ironic thing is that the mother was a good 75 pounds overweight. If Mom needs to surround herself with people who dress and look ‘perfect’, I know a good place for her to start.

BTW, every time I hear about child beauty pageants, I think “Superfreak” and “Little Miss Sunshine.” She’s superfreaking out.

I think my original point has been demonstrated.

Allow me to translate… “I’m addicted to cheap porn and it’s all Mike South’s fault”

With that in mind, I think I’ll compose a nasty letter to Anheuser-Busch… as I pop open another Mic Ultra.

Instead, I offer the suggestion that what causes adults to sexualize things which they should not (their children) is the fact that so many other, less controversial things have already been sexualized – but have now lost their novelty. Pornography, probably more than any other single thing, is responsible for that. Being home alone on a week night is not a sexually arousing situation. Going into the office early in the morning to finish a project and then having an hour to spare before one’s coworkers show up is not a sexual situation. But pornography, by it’s very nature, says it is. To the extent that Mike South is involved in pornography, he is responsible for facilitating that. I know he would like to think that the pornography he produces is only used in the healthiest of ways – by single men once in a blue moon because the woman he went on a date with earlier in the evening turned out to be a flake, or by happy couples on a friday night over a bottle of wine – but he knows full well that most of the time this isn’t the case. He knows full well that if it were, the vast majority of pornographers – including himself – wouldn’t be in the business. Only he doesn’t want to know it – and so he concocts premature, more or less pointless indictments of things like child beauty pagents and posts them on his blog. All to hide from himself the nature of what it is that he does for a living. So he tell himself yes, he may pander to the neurotic urges of men who, left alone with a computer, just can’t help but to waste good time and money undermining their capacity to connect with a wife or a girlfriend, but at least he isn’t pandering to pedophiles like The Learning Channel is doing. He may feel, at times, an inexplicable, unprovoked sense of shame, and a shattering of his carefully-manicured self-respect (both things which he should feel), but at least he “knows” he’s not as bad as those sexually-repressed, pedophiliacs who put their children in beauty pagents.

Now, some of you might say that pornography does no such thing to the people who consume it. That is it actually helpful. That those involved in every aspect of it’s production are brining their own sexually-liberated, emotionally-stable perspective to their customers and in doing so helping them to avoid the pitfalls of a sexually-repressed culture (developing a prediliction for children included). I disagree. I say that just as pornography does no such thing to those who consume it to the point where they’re interested in the low-quality stuff Mike puts out – and in fact does the exact opposite to them – so to does it do what it does to those who produce it.

Here is my evidence: It can be reasonable assumed that everyone involved in this discussion has an above average involvement in the consumption or production, or both, of pornography. By any rational standard, an emotionally healthy adult, when confronted with an idea of any kind, either addresses that idea in full or discards it outright as fundamentally flawed. Instead, let’s examine what the response of those involved with pornography has been: Hunter and TVShooter chose not to deal with my idea and instead appeared to dismiss it outright. This would have been fine if that is actually what either had actually done, but did they? Both – one explicitly, one implicitly – conceded that the principle I initially raised was valid, but simply said that it did not apply to Mike South. Now, I understand that if all I had done was to make my assertion, they would not be obligated to provide evidence to the contrary, but since I did provide evidence to support my assertion, they should have addressed that evidence direction. If persuasion, instead of intimidation, had been the intention of either one of them, this is what they would have done. Instead, both just asserted that my assertion isn’t true, and then quickly moved into a counter-offensive position, attacking my person as hypocritical. If either were truly confident that I had not hit on something fundamental about Mike, he would have either refuted it fully, or simply denied it and said nothing else. Their emotions, however, drove them to attack me unnecessarily. I submit that this is a byproduct of the perspective on human relationships one must internalize in order to be successful in porn. That perspective is that facts are not facts, or that the nature of pornography is not the nature of pornography, so long as one can get those who might realize it to forget it. If emotional intimidation becomes necessary once emotional pandering has worn thin, so be it. JulieMeadows’ criticism is not worth addressing.

I am fully aware that I am a hypocrite. I realize that by being here I am adopting the exact same irrational standard of “as least I’m not as bad as…” that I am criticizing Mike for possessing. The only difference between myself and the rest of you is that I know that I am doing it, and that I have the courage to admit it. I am not here to persuade you – I am specifically here to intimidate you. To cause you unease and to intensify the self-doubt and inexplicable guilt you all constantly feel, but have defrayed, transmuted, and repressed. I want you to become accutely aware of it as often as possible, and I do that by letting you know that I know that it’s there, and that I understand it. Why do I do this? Primarily, in order to see how you will react. To remind myself that at root, underneath all of the glib and glamour and niceties, I am dealing with people who are fundamentally irrational and scared. My secondary purpose is to, perhaps, make the quality and/or quantity of your work suffer. In doing so, there will be less with which you can postpone anyone from dealing with the fundamental issue at hand. Both serve my ultimate purpose: I am trying to free myself of the trap people like you have put me in, and doing this is part of it.

Those “pagents” are some of the most vile, disgusting things you’ll ever see. Early in my freelance career, when needing to make some cash to pay the bills, I worked 2 days shooting one of those things. To think being critical of them would somehow allow Mike to justify his work is showing you’ve no idea who Mike is or what he’s about.

Parents take these children…yes, children…and slather makeup all over them, dress them in sequin outfits and teach them to parade themselves as young women. I have actually heard mothers…most of whom are either failed beauty queens themselves and/or seriously low self esteemed idiots…tell their daughters as young as 5…to “be more sexy when you walk down the runway”. Yep-good old Mom encouraging…well…. more like badgering…her 5 year old to to sex it up. I’ve watched dear Mom tell her daughter to “shake it baby!”. To listen to a mother and father discuss if a series of pictures is “hot enough”…ugh. Kids crying all over the place, being bullied and in one case threatened by her parents. Two of the most disgusting days I’ve ever worked.

This show will feature trainwreck after trainwreck of emotions. They’ll need confrontation (yes a producer will interject some if it’s not happening naturally), so we’ll see lots of crying children, Mom yelling and of course, kids “sexing it up”.

So who in the fucking world would this appeal to?

Two groups come to mind-people that want to see other people’s lives in chaos because they feel better about their own crappy lives (“hey I may be bad off but not as bad off as they are!”), and someone that enjoys watching little kids all dolled up.

The kids in this show had absolutely no say in appearing in it. It’s strictly the parents decision, to achieve their own 15 minutes of reality show fame for themselves. The justification is “it’s to help my kid’s career” or “because I want my child to be a star”. And behind the scenes? They all bugged the shit out of the producers about getting their own show. And would cut the kid out in a heartbeat to do it. Happens on every show I’ve worked on. These are VERY self absorbed poeple…see Jon and Kate for a great example.

Just because Mike shoots video of girls having sex does not disqualify him from commenting on such a disgusting concept of a show. I saw the same promo for this show, while watching tv with my girlfriend. Both of us were disgusted by the whole thing. Being someone that likes adult videos does that mean we can’t be disgusted?

Mike doesn’t take children and present them as adults. These pagents (and TLC) do.

And yet you come to Mike’s website of an adult nature, to express your displeasure with Mike’s disgust at this show, because Mike is morally unfit to comment because he worls in the adult business. Instead of doing what most “morally just” people would do….write TLC and tell them how awful this show is.

Funny-you bust on Mike yet allow the show, it’s creators and TLC a free pass.

So I must assume your moral code allows that this show is okay.