Isn't this a cycle that happens with almost all cultural output? The same thing has happened to "indie" music, and "indie" film. Not that it's a good thing, but it seems like the natural progression of the way our society works. The only way to guard against that is to do something that isn't going to become popular any time soon (like radio drama and silent movies) because as soon as something catches on, it's co-opted by the establishment.

I wonder if this problem could be guarded against with more informed consumers. If you go to the grocery store and want to buy an organic arugala or something, you can make an informed decision based on the label etc.

While the cycle of indie being coopted by corporate happens in a lot of industries (definitely not just porn), I think there are a couple extra factors that aggravate things when it comes to wank material -- specifically, the fee processing and 2257 issues mentioned above.

Even if big corporations have taken over music/film/etc, there are still indie bands, indie films, etc (they just don't get as much attention as their corporate counterparts). In the porn world, however, independent production has pretty much died out.

if you think vivid alt is the same old shit in a fancy box, you are obviously not paying attention.

@DanaDeArmond: Vivid Alt is definitely different from most mainstream porn. But it's also completely different from the indie-produced, alternative pornography that the label altporn used to signify, which was more my point.

um. i produced my own movie. so, it doesnt really seem like you know much of anything about it.

The whole term "alt" really needs a few more nails in its coffin, as it's just a word. Why not just call it "natural looking people with tattoos", which is really all it is these days?

The same thing happened with Bang Bros., and it will happen to Abby Winters (and, hey!, Wicked is distributing their next two titles, for what it's worth), too, and so on and so forth. But fake can sometimes be just as good, and having a choice (even if they're a little watered down) isn't so bad, either. If anything, it does allow more opportunities to see up and coming talent in less conventional porn scenarios, even if, like Vivid Alt, it's being bankrolled by a bigger fish. And while I would love to toss all of my recession-era dollars at a mom and pop like Tony Comstock (and I still will), being able to see a two-week-only career stint by a girl or boy spread across six or seven releases by bigger studios seems more fair on the consumer's end of the stick, or at least mine, specifically. But them's the breaks, I guess.

@DanaDeArmond: Did you produce it with your own money? And market and distribute it completely on your own? (i.e., with zero help from Vivid, the biggest porn company in the world.) I think that's the point she was trying to make.

I think it is hard to reconcile your perspective, Lux, with Dana's since you are looking at the same thing from two different sides. Currently available alt porn seems increasingly accessible and still "alt", and that is good for the casual consumer. But, like Punk Rock to Hot Topic, alt porn is probably losing some of the origins that made it interesting in the first place.

P.S. Lux, your writing is really great. I especially appreciate your not relying so heavily on puns as compared to a lot of porn bloggers. Thanks for all your work!

@MichelleMyBelle: Thanks! Your kind words are very much appreciated.

SuicideGirls is the Standard Oil of pomo-porn. (I don't like the prefix 'pomo' anymore than I like 'alt', but from falling into disuse with the introduction of alt to the zeitgeist, it doesn't grate so much, outwardly, on my eyes & ears.) Now, wouldn't we all like to be the John D. Rockefeller of erotica. Well, the SG brand just happened to get there first.*

*This would seem to imply that I am saying all bile reserved for SG is a product of jealousy, & not a longing for "fair-play". It's not, though. Certainly, jealousy at how SG managed to sell its brand -- I recall when I first learned of it, late '02 or early '03, when it was a year-old (or little more) & lagging the likes of BurningAngel -- is rampant, but even I would call into question the payment schedule for models & the distribution of their photo-sets. (I have fewer qualms with the "exclusivity" side; there again, "contract girls" are much discussed on this site, with respect other producers, & even such venerable brands as Playboy would prefer not to share their models. (To wit, I recall first seeing such as Aria Giovanni, Erica Campbell, & Joy Behrman in Playboy, but not so much since they moved to other venues.) All told, though, the SG hate is as much sour-grapes as any concern for the well-being of the individual SuicideGirls & their earning capability.

** Also, to extend the metaphor, I fully expect SG's end-game to play out like the end of There will be blood.

@Lux Nightmare: fee processing only strangles monetized alt porn. DIY erotica is endangered only if you expect to make money at it. And if you take money out of the equation, doesn't that bring us closer to the loft ideal of being an alternative to begin with? 2257, of course is a different matter. That's a political beast.

@Justin K. Rivers: This is my own personal bias, but I take issue with the whole doing it for free thing, largely because I feel that nude modeling -- like any form of art, actually -- is work that deserves to be fairly compensated. By which I mean "with cold, hard cash."

Great article, Lux, despite the lack of puns. Taking money out of the equation certainly ups the cred; too bad people can't be altporn in public like your favorite unsigned and uncompromised band.

@Lux Nightmare: "Artists are entitled to recompense". -- Sen. Patrick Leahy, in discussing the peril of Napster ('99 or '00, when that meant something)

Actually, Paypal dropped that "no porn" rule about a year ago. They really didn't talk about it, but it actually states in their ToS now that you CAN use Paypal for transactions involving adult material, providing it is for a tangible good, and not a service.

@Marsupial: Do digital pix count as a tangible good?

I just wanted to note that the "ya'll should be doing it fer free" pseudo-political argument almost always comes from men outside the industry, ie, porn fans who want free porn. I've seen massive sprawling debates on this topic unfold many times, and I can't help but notice that through all the punker-than-thou posturing, it always feels like a group of jilted dudes trying to convince women that in order to be truly liberated/alt, they must work hard to sexually entertain them for free. That's about as convincing to me as, "Baby, if you were really a feminist, you'd go get me a beer and then rub my feet."

@Furry Girl: Well put!

For me, it brings up the whole "sex work isn't real work" thing -- which, quite frankly, is not the case: try spending your days making porn and see how you feel about it then.

@Furry Girl: Though that demeaning attitude certainly exists, it wasn't my point. In any case, I'm not a freeloader and I also work in the idustry.

Money has a corrosive influence on any ideals, whether that influence is external or internal. An artist should be compelled to art whether the pay is good or not. Certain art, of course, requires a lot of money. But plenty of others (like radio drama) do not.

To be a radio dramatist, for example, would result in no meaningful income or prestige. But I could do it anyway, in my spare time, and share my work with a small community of people who appreciate it. Radio dramatists today do just that. But that doesn't mean that the art form is dead. Alt, with its idealism and aspirations, doesn't die if you can't make a living at it. It dies if people stop making it.

I don't exactly disagree, Justin, but I'd say that indie (pay)porn is the precise embodiment of "An artist should be compelled to art whether the pay is good or not."

There is NO real money to be made in alt/indie porn. I swear.

Everyone says they're all about sexually liberated embrace-everyone radical body positivity, but sites that feature non- "mainstream beautiful" models don't really make any money. Cases in point: both the owner of NoFauxxx.com and myself (VegPorn.com & EroticRed.com) maintain non-altporn careers because our indie sites don't make enough to support us. She works for a cool non-porn company and I run my more heteronormative FurryGirl.com to bring home the soybacon.

This is why it's especially insulting that we get picked on all the time for charging money for our small productions- we're running our sites as "wastes of time" in the financial sense, but they're projects we love and care for. To get regularly prodded for being greedy capitalist pigs really adds insult to injury.

(Not that you're being viscous here, Justin, but I've been weathering attacks for many years now by people who think I'm a terrible human being for charging money for my work.)

Of course, the ultimate answer to all this is: Want some free alt porn? Create some free alt porn!

Having watch "alt" rock sell it's soul from a front row seat in Seattle (such as Queensryche ditching the long hair and tight leather pants for stubble and flannel and suddenly appearing on MTV), none of this came as any surprise. Case in point is this graphic that happened to be open in a tab as I was reading this detailing international corporations and the little "organic" and "natural" brands they bought up and are cashing in on:

[tinyurl.com]

It's the distributors and aggregators who win every time. Independent producers have no way to share risk -- if no one shows up, you've lost your investment. And if people do show up, it's not so easy to scale. But a publisher paying dozens of producers a nominal fee only needs a couple of hits to make it all pay off. And when a brand like Suicide Girls becomes the defacto destination for a content niche, it makes it that much harder to break through the marketing noise and let potential customers know about your work.

Hence, an individual is at best left with doing commissioned work for a larger site and has to hope they can negotiate favorable terms. But the publisher has a severe advantage in negotiations because they know the terms of all the other contracts and see any individual model as basically replaceable and expendable. If I was a Suicide Girl, I'd be lobbying other models to help force management into a collective bargaining agreement or at least an option to purchase an ownership stake in the site and its profits.

HO....Li....Crap.
What kind of.... The country was settled by puritans, but then Adam Smith guided the capitalism. Lux, Furry, of course you should get paid.

How many times have I felt down only to be brought up by a smiling nude regular person. It is worth something, especially if it costs you money to send it through the net pipe.

I get the whole exhibitionist thing, but seriously, is your nude body public domain? I am twitching over this. Who would say free?

I am sorry you both have to answer to the debate. Beautiful, both of you.

It's still possible to start your own DIY indie porn site. We did it! Check us out at [sharingissexy.org] . Would a radical feminist love us? I hope so, since I consider myself a radical feminist. I hope we're progressive enough for you.

xo, lotu5

@Furry Girl: Sorry FG but I think it is a "mortal sin" to pay for internet porn pix and videos. You would have to be either extremely naive or really hung up on some porn queen to spend your own money simply because there is a huge glut of adult content out there that is free.

And I'm not some wanker looking for free jerk off content. I've worked on adult website since 1996. I'm just being realistic about the value of the over saturated market for adult content

@buckminster: Just because you can get porn for free, that doesn't mean that the models shouldn't be compensated.

I get TV for free, you read this blog for free -- but the people in my favorite TV shows, and the author of this post (hi!) are still getting paid.

@I.M.B.Y: my point, (as it seems I am responsible for notion you are objecting to) is not to deny a nude model compensation for their work or to undermine their legitimacy in our capitalist system. The original post is really about the "death" of a cultural phenomenon. Which isn't really dying, but it IS changing. There is a differance between the actual cultural content and the way in which it is monetized. If it's harder (or impossible) to make money doing alt porn, that doesn't mean that alt porn is dead. The two are separate, but related, issues. It's also NOT about trying to wring free porn out of people. It is about the fact that trends and movements change all the time, rising and falling in popularity and in the ability to make money participating in such trends or movements. But the actual aesthetics are independent of this. And so are the core values. Related, of course, in that the more incentives there are, the more people who are involved in producing it. But not the same.

eek! now that i've had time to read the discussion, i feel like my previous comment wasn't very relevant because we're not a "for pay" site, and you're talking about "for pay" sites. i totally respect the difficulty of trying to do that, and we don't have that added level of difficulty with our project.

but something i can add is that yes, based on my experience, 2257 does make it nearly impossible for independent producers to put up their own sites. we were only able to do it because of the incredible generosity of the hard working women at the porn shack that is hosting our documents.

also, our site does not get an overwhelming amount of traffic, and i imagine its because of the way we don't conform well to western beauty standards and heteronormative practices. like you said, really being alt is very difficult.

and i'm totally with you, lux, and furry girl on the "for free" aspect. If you want to do it for pay, that's totally your right and your choice and all those people who say it "should" be for free should fuck off.

@djlotu5: Your comment is still relevant! I think it adds to the discussion, honestly, because it demonstrates that a lot of altstyle porn currently thrives in places where people are willing to do it out of love, and not for profit.

I totally respect that motivation -- but I also think that it's a hard way to grow something or get traction. As I'm sure you can attest to, running a site like this is a lot of work, and takes a lot of effort to keep going -- the ability to make a living doing it is a good motivator... but one that, as mentioned before, is increasingly difficult to attain.

p.s. I ♥ radical feminists who ♥ porn.

@Justin K. Rivers:

nah Justin, I am just surprised anyone, not just you but those Furrygirl and Lux talk about, would go and tell some one else to do something for free.

It's not like it's volunteering at a soup kitchen

@I.M.B.Y: Yeah, there's a lot less penetration and nudity at soup kitchens.

Unless I'm going to the wrong soup kitchens.

@Lux: I for one wouldn't mind a little more reliance on puns in your writing.
j/k.
(mostly)

@ElleasinSwell: I'll see what I can do. But just for you.

just WOW.