Flox-ing A Dead Horse?

I've been half-dead from the flu (and the other half wishes I was dead) ~ maybe I shouldn't have had that phone sex with Ms Angela when she was so sick herself? Anyway, one person is worthy of crawling out of bed and taking a shower... The fabulous AV Flox of OMG. OMG! OMFG!

AV writes about the weird, complicated entanglements people get themselves into, from hook-ups to marriage, and how these connections are made easier or exacerbated by technology. She's currently working with fellow journo John Bowe on a collection of interviews about American views on love. AV champions understanding materiality, being polite on the internet, acknowledging the historical significance of pornography and erotica, and inviting gonzo back into journalism. She writes smut, overshares about her sex life on Twitter, and has been labeled by critics as a slut with low journalistic standards. She doesn't apologize about sex saying, "Anyway, wasn't Pulitzer also the father of yellow journalism?"

AV also describes herself as a huge information monger and story collector. "I don't think I have any real desire to do anything other than absorb information, lounge and write. Thank god for the internet, right?"

Amen, sister Flox.

Join AV Flox & I tonight, Wednesday November 19th, from 9 to 10 pm (central time).

CNBC's Dirty Money Special

I did watch Dirty Money: The Business of High-End Prostitution, which was far better than the witch-hunt Sawyer et all put on ~ CNBC even had my friend Amanda Brooks on. (She did a spectacular job!) We recorded the show, so I'm saving my official review for once we get clips transferred for web viewing.

The Art (Of Writing) For Art's Sake?

On last week's Cult of Gracie, part of the discussion returned to the issue of the value of writing, especially of adult writing on human sexuality. The lovely Rebecca sent a follow-up email about the talk:

Thanks for having me on the show last night and letting me stay and chat. That was so awesome. Pete listened to it as well, and here are some of our thoughts on writing for creativity vs writing to eat.

In no way am I a writer, so lets get that's straight. But I do consider myself an artist, and I live with an artist, so that's the perspective I am coming from.

Writing is an art form itself and is a creative field. And like most artistic ventures, the people that can support themselves strictly on their artistic vision is .5%. That means that 99.5% of people in that field make no money or not enough money to support themselves.

I think it has more to do with this, than it does the fact that it is the sex industry. Even in mainstream, the majority of writers, poets and painters cannot survive on their vision. And of the .5% that do, most of those people are financially able to carry themselves, but are in no way wealthy.

There are many people that tackle this by writing for commission, and leaving free time to write their passion. For those people, it can work great. Taking the financial stress off the table then allows them to write with clarity, not having to worry about paying the bills and having that interfere with their vision. They may not love the commission work, but it gets them by and relieves the pressure.

For those that choose the road of creating just their vision find that it is easier said than done. Sooner or later, life creeps in, and you find yourself creating for the market and losing the vision you originally set out to explore. How can this not happen? The artist who paints still lifes finds his still lifes with cats are a big hit. Being excited that people respond, he/she creates more paintings with cats. How soon until he loses site of his still lifes and finds himself just painting cats? The odd thing is that once he goes down that road, the cat paintings stop selling. He began to create for the marketplace, and his work lost the honesty and feeling behind it that people were connecting with.

This happens more often when financial milsetones are the road you are following. Money has a great way of pushing our heads in a different direction. To stay on the "honest" path, the milestones can't be financial, but "Is my message being heard?". You then have to trust that
financial gain will follow.

Remember too, that most great works of art were commissions, created within the confines of someone else. Michealangelo did not want to paint the Sistine Chapel. It wasn't his vision, but he needed to create it in order to get the jobs that were to come after. Within the confines of the commission, he was still able to use his talents and create a masterpiece. That I think is the realistic balance. Creating a masterpiece wherever you may be.

And the struggle itself is beautiful and is what I think keeps you honest. Without the struggle, you lose your passion.

I do think that much of the work I see from writers such as yourselves, as well as some erotic photographers is beginning to create new genres of intelligent erotica, intelligent porn and smarter content. I know people have been talking about it and working towards it, and I think it is beginning to grab hold.

Will it happen soon enough for everyone to capitalize on it? Maybe not, but that's the chance (and reward) you take when you attempt to break new ground. At the very least, instead of walking the beaten path, you are walking where there is no path, and leaving a trail.

Rebecca & Pete

I think there are more than a few solid gold points in here about supply & demand, art, and purpose. Add this to my talk about the value of writing (especially on the Internet) and then hit us with your thoughts!

Cult Of Gracie Radio: Marketing Edition

Both Callie Simms & I (wearing my Marketing Whore hat) will be back on Cult of Gracie Radio tonight, from 9-10 PM (Central), discussing mainstream & mature marketing from more of a 'how to' aspect. Tonight's agenda includes the following discussion:

* SEO: application tips (how) & definitions of purpose (why)

* The purpose behind & use of blogs (when to use, what they are for; when blogging doesn't make sense)

* Content: What is, and isn't, content with a purpose, and the issue of "giving it away for free". (somewhat related to both of the above)

* Ethics & 'feelings' about blogging & online user IDs. (When using a pen name feels icky, but is necessary; are there situations to 'out' yourself?)

(Of course, I'm sure we'll still have plenty of lively debate as we defend our reasoning!)

You can join the conversation by calling 646.200.3136

It's Not A Race To The Bottom Everywhere

The latest edition of Carnival of the Liberals is out at Clashing Culture, focusing on "the best ten posts of the 38 submitted this fortnight past, written by people who are trying to apply the brakes as we slide towards the bottom." Go read it.

I'd like to thank Mike, aka Tangled Up In Blue Guy, for including my post at Sex-Kitten.net, titled What does the economic crisis mean for prostitutes?. Mike included it, saying, "she makes a great point of the effects of the economic downturn on the people we don’t want to admit make money from sex. The ones that make a lot of money from sex may be the ones that do well, but in a society that hides sex work because of morality, well, people get hurt."

I'm thrilled to see issues of sex work included in mainstream discussion of the economy and other realities of our time. It gives me hope that not all of us are in a race to the bottom, that some of us are looking at the issues. Thanks, Mike!

Cult of Gracie Radio With Callie Simms

Wednesday, October 8th, Gracie and guest Callie Simms dish mainstream and adult marketing ~ which, naturally, will hit upon all sorts of goodies (and badies) in our culture, like politics, blogging, and gender.

Callie holds a Masters degree in marketing with a concentration in writing from Northwestern University & owns CS Entertainment, an adult industry writing services firm. Her written works have appeared in Spread and Slate Magazines; film and television credits include head writer for an erotic film studio as well as writing for mainstream television.

Join us on Cult of Gracie Radio from 9-10 PM (Central) on October 8th.

Submit (Your Posts) To XXBN

XXBN's hosting the next Carnival of the Liberals, on September 24th ~ please submit something grande!

You can check the last edition of the carnival at Redonkulous Redundancy.

XXBN Sponsorships & Advertising

Looking to reach sex positive, progressive men and women?

You can sponsor &/or advertise on individual shows or all of XXBN's programming. Options include web display ads (banner), audio ads, & on-air sponsor mentions.

You may also advertise on this blog. (Monthly ~ or longer ~ sponsors receive acknowledgement for their support with mention/link at this blog, so that all listeners know of your continued support.)

Contact Gracie Passette at Gracie (dot) Passette (at) gmail (dot) com to discuss your interests & needs.

If you're an individual or company simply wishing to give kudos, you may donate to the shows/hosts to show your support:

Donate to Up The Hill With Zach & Jill (Jill Brenneman)

Donate to Cult of Gracie (Gracie Passette)

(Please note that donations are wildly welcomed; but as donations, have no promises or strings attached.)

Thanks, BlogTalkRadio!

Hey, today's Cult of Gracie show (9 pm central) with Nina Hartley is featured on BlogTalkRadio's home page!


Never let it be said that BlogTalkRadio isn't super supportive of adult conversation, issues and programming.

The Monolith Of Alternative Media: Thoughts On Blogs & Blogging

Amber Rhea writes of different kinds of blogs:

...this is something I’ve talked about all over the place plenty of times before: how making sweeping statements about “blogs,” as if blogs are a monolith, is pointless because there are so many different kinds of blogs. There are blogs that are online news outlets, many of which break stories. There are blogs that are devoted to political analysis. There are blogs that are focused on a specific topic and definitely write with more of a “for the audience” perspective. And there are plenty of blogs (such as I would class my own) that exist primarily for the blogger, cover a wide variety of topics, but do not purport to be unbiased or “fair and balanced” or objective, etc. etc. etc. So when talking about credibility, citizen journalism, etc., I was thinking it only makes sense to apply those standards to the certain types of blogs that want them.

But then I thought, well, that’s too simplistic, too. With a lot of blogs, there’s not this stark dividing line between one type vs. another type. I would call my blog a “personal blog,” but I also have, arguably, “reported” on plenty of things. So have many other people who write the type of blog I do - and that makes sense, because why should writing about an issue, or posting news, etc., have to be sequestered from writing about one’s life? And really, i think when the two mingle, that’s when some of the most effective political activism can take place - or am I abusing the old adage “the personal is political” again? ;) I just think for a lot of people, putting the humanity into something helps them see why it’s important, and think of it in a more concrete way, and not just as an abstract “issue.”

Her post, as usual, is thought provoking & brings up several good issues... Today, I'll just focus on the matter of blog definitions; something I find both interesting and irrelevant.

Such distinctions are are irrelevant because as the self-published acts of individuals, they are about as varied as the individuals themselves and so warrant no distinctions. Like the paper diaries and journals they digitally represent/replace, they are without need for categorization. However...

As published public displays, they become media; and this is where it gets interesting.

For the most part, individuals themselves categorize the blogs just by the act of selection; they read what they like and eschew the rest. But as blogs are available to all, some feel the need to define, even regulate. Combine this with the fact that many bloggers themselves argue for the same rights, access privileges, & status as "members of The Media", the discussion of definitions (including the side-paths of credibility & legitimacy) will continue.

"Legitimate" is a funny word. It is about as subjective as the "art vs. porn" debate, wherein the I-know-it-when-I-read-it definition of value will be applied to, in this case blogs and bloggers, as each individual sees fit to define it. Even when they cannot articulate it.

From a business point of view, the popularity (in terms of readership, loyalty &/or following) speaks volumes to the issue of legitimacy. Consumption is a bottom line that few can argue with, even if issues such as quality, purpose, and status continue to elude agreed upon definitions.

Many of us simply just act as if we and our blogs are Media. Considering ourselves to be/offer alternative media, we don't worry about the pat on the head which comes from a "legitimate" label. We just do it. And we do it in our own way.

Radio's Influence Changing

This post, On the Radio: New listening habits alter playing field, by David Hinckley, is focused on radio's power in terms of music; but the information (not actual numbers) likely represents changes in talk too:

...another survey by Coleman Insights illustrates the changing landscape.

Coleman surveyed 14- to 17-year-olds, who are obviously critical because they're the listeners and consumers of tomorrow, and found 78% listened to radio every day.

That's strong. But it's lower than it used to be, and the survey found 84% listened to music on a computer, iPod or MP3 every day. That's the first time "alternative" sources have topped radio.

In another Coleman study of teenagers, 41% said theiriPods or MP3 players are the first place they go to hear music. About 27% said computers and 22% said FM radio.

So teenagers who all used to listen to the radio now increasingly find new music through Facebook or MySpace or P2P file-swapping. The radio is still important, but now it's just one thread in the fabric.

You may be tired of so many "changes in media" talk, but I'm building towards something; so keep reading.

Sex, Lies & Media Ownership

For those who still can't wrap their minds around the fact that gender & race are still barriers...

In Calling All Women and Minority Media Owners (But Not Too Loudly), Kristal Brent Zook covers the Access to Capital Conference where Democrats had FCC reform in mind ~ and "a desire to highlight ongoing federal barriers to accessing capital and media licenses."

She writes:

Today it’s virtually impossible for an individual woman to buy a full power television station, said [Barbara] Lawrence. The sentiment was echoed by others. Unless one inherits a station, the only real possibilities are in low-power television, and even then, mostly in small and medium sized markets.

“It takes tens of billions of dollars to own a station,” said Lawrence. “There are FCC issues, legal issues, engineering issues, financial issues. It takes a lifetime of work.”

Diane Sutton of ShootingStar Broadcasting said that she was able to become an owner because she had two things, information and access. Sutton, who now does training for potential media owners, says that it’s important to know “how to write a business plan, how to secure equity, and how to get to know the brokers and bankers before you need the money.”

She also spoke about the virtues of the tax certificate, a federal policy incentive that was repealed in 1995 despite the fact that it increased minority ownership by fivefold during its 17 years of existence. Part of a larger Minority Ownership Policy instituted by an innovative young FCC attorney, Frank Washington, it rewarded radio or TV station owners by allowing them to defer capital gains tax if they sold stations to minority members.

Not only should the tax certificate have been preserved, argued Diane Sutton, but it should have also been expanded to include women “which, surprisingly, it did not.”

This explains so too much.

Alternatives In Radio & Media

At Washington Interns Gone Bad, Jason Buckley rejoices in the finally allowed merger of XM-Sirius. He puts things in grande perspective:

But wait a second, you ask, aren't I supposed to be against big corporate media mergers? Well of course I am. But this isn't the same as Rupert Murdoch or Clear Channel or Viacom buying up as many TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, billboards, social networking sites and concert venues as they can get their greedy little hands on to homogenize the information that the public has access to and race to find the lowest common denominator to market to. No, these are two new companies using new technology to compete with the monolithic media conglomerates out there. And that is why the National Association of Broadcasters has pumped hundreds of millions in bribes of lobbying dollars to keep these struggling companies from merging. No, the terrestrial media does not want another kind of media that the public can opt into and take their eyes and ears away from their advertising, and for them to say that they are against this because it's a monopoly is laughable. These stuffed suits are scared shitless of having to compete with a medium that is uncensored and has less advertising, and they bought off enough members of congress and FCC hacks to make this the longest merger approval process perhaps in the history of business. To put it in perspective, oil companies have their mergers approved practically overnight, and look how great that's been for the consumer. This was a concerted effort to kill an emerging medium, and completely the opposite of any kind of free market capitalism that these people supposedly believe in when it's convenient to them.

Though I can't afford to be a subscriber, I too have been hoping for the merger for the very same reasons. I'm all for alternatives ~ especially those which positively shake-up and wake-up the media.

For too long real choices have been kept from those of us who, due to economic imprisonment, have been forced to subsist on the mediocre & the conservative. Neither form fosters real discussion.

What upsets and concerns me the most is that you cannot really call current media "mainstream" as it doesn't accurately reflect what the majority thinks &/or wants. We, the huddled masses, cannot express our votes as consumers as readily, greedily, as those in corporate media ~ or those whose wealth exploits and pressures it. Millions of viewers/listeners are less valued than the millions of advertising dollars; for even while we are the target audience which is supposed to have the final say in a capitalistic society, our shifting & shrinking buying power potential is like those birds in the bush when compared to the bird in the hand of ad revenues, product placement, and the "values" these companies want extolled. And so, media no longer is for us. Or even about us.

I'm not saying that satellite radio is perfect, nor that it will not become like the rest; certainly cable TV has changed from a subscriber focused media to an advertiser driven business. But maybe, just maybe, satellite radio will learn to capitalize, monetize, the opportunity to appeal to listeners. And we will have not only alternative media, but alternatives in media.

Of course, you need not use satellite radio to get alternative media. May I recommend XXBN? *wink*