Of course, by "porn culture" what he really means is "sex"—which is not the same thing although they are obviously linked—and he is correct that our world is more open about than it has ever been. Yet, it many ways our culture is more prudish and alarmist than it has ever been. There is a battle going on, but it's not the one he thinks it is. It's a battle between the natural desires that people feel and express everyday and those who want to suppress those desires and keep them out of the public sphere at all cost. Sooner or later, those people will lose.

Humans are sexual beings and nothing will ever change that. Their interest in porn is not a perversion or addiction, it's simply an outlet for what they already desire. In fact, "porn addicts" are not addicted to pictures and videos—they are addicted to the ideas those things represent. (Or they're "addicted" to masturbation, which is the same as being addicted to eating or sleeping.) A couple that has sex twice a day would never be accused of being addicted to each other.

Is sex becoming too pervasive? Perhaps. There's a place for sex within our public lives, in the same way that there's a place for it within our private ones and where that place belongs is a debate worth having. You see it in the arguments over Max Hardcore, as even staunch freedom of speech warriors find it difficult to stand up for something that personally disgusts them. Should a father have to explain to his children what that Viagra ad means while watching TV? No, probably not. But should he also ignore it, try to push it under the rug, and pretend that sexuality doesn't exist? That seems even less helpful.

What I object to most are media outlets that use porn for attention and ratings, while simultaneously wagging their finger at it. They employ salacious headlines and blurry images, and a knowing wink to tell half the viewers that they're on their side (sex is wrong and dangerous) while letting the other half in on the joke—they're loving it too. We're all into it, but we aren't allowed to admit it out loud. We can all hunt across the internet for a Britney Spears sex tape, but can't talk about that tape in polite company ... even though all of your neighbors have already downloaded it. It can only be discussed as an ironic joke or with a snide remark and never with the respect deserving of something so meaningful to so many lives.

There's no way any of this will get solved with a book or a few blog posts, but here's hoping that we can at least be a little more honest and open with each other—and with ourselves. I never set out to become a porn writer, but in the time I've been doing this I've learned a lot about sex and media and how important both are to people's lives. I hope they can learn to get along.

In any case, this will be my last post at Fleshbot. After two-and-half years in the porn mines, it's time for me to move on to something new, but this experience has certainly been a memorable one. This site and this company gave me a chance at a time when I really needed one and I'm grateful for all that opportunity has led to. Thank you to all the readers who came here every day and gave us a reason to keep writing. I know that Lux will continue the tradition that's been established over the last five years—respect for the performers and the audience combined with a spirit of adventure and fun. There is not another site like this one anywhere on the web and I'm thankful that I got to be a part of that.

Needless to say, we're not totally convinced by Tancer's super compelling argument. Granted, we haven't seen his data, but the simple claim that searches for porn have dropped from 20% of all searches to 10%, and that social networks are now the dominant search theme, isn't enough to get us preparing for a grand ol' porno funeral. Allow us to explain ...

There's more of the internet than there used to be. As the internet grows, matures, and spreads into homes across America, it's only natural that porn would become a smaller percentage of all the content out there — not because porn is less popular, but because it's gone from being a big fish in a small pond to a big fish in a very, very large pond.

Social networks are work friendly. You (probably) can look at Facebook while you're slacking off at work. You (probably) can't look at Fleshbot. Does that mean that you like Facebook better than Fleshbot? We'll let you think on that one.

Social networks are kid friendly. We hear the kids are big into the internet these days — and they also really like the MySpace. Chances are, their parents are going to be more okay with them looking at MySpace or Facebook rather than porn. And the more that kids become heavy internet users, the more these numbers are going to get skewed.

Adult sites are vastly more profitable than social networks. Unlike Facebook, most porn sites have figured out some decent ways to monetize their traffic (even with smaller users bases). Somehow, we think the money is going to have the final word on this one.

· "Facebook and MySpace are Killing Porn?" (mashable.com)
· "Porn passed over as Web users become social" (reuters.com)

The basic complaint, as always, is that these rags create unfair portraits of women that are impossible (and unhealthy) to emulate ... kind of like every other magazine on the planet. They'll all rot your brain in the end, but at least we get to look at Lucy Pinder while it happens.

· "Lad mags 'linked to social ills'" (bbc.co.uk; more @ jezebel.com)

You can probably guess what our answer is to that question, but apparently some folks still think this is a matter of some debate. That's why the Los Angeles Times threw together a little point-counterpoint between associate professor of First Amendment law Barry McDonald and indicted smutographer John Stagliano. It isn't a debate so much as is it Barry offering up such proof for the value of obscenity laws as, "Because I said so," and John helpfully pointing out that America isn't supposed to work that way. Of course, Stagliano is facing up to 39 years in prison because of these laws, so he's understandably a little touchy about the subject. Maybe next time the lawyer will remember to mention the actual law.

· "Stuff so raunchy, it's illegal" (latimes.com)

So why did they bring the suit in the first place? Good question! One of the lawyers involved said that people should not have to be surprised by sex in an otherwise innocent video game—even if that "surprise" is impossible since one had to willfully download and install the mod in order to see the dirty stuff. It wasn't made, sold or endorsed by the company that was sued, and there was no doubt what the modification was for. Yet, even if it Take Two Interactive fully meant for this animated porn to appear in the game, why would so few of the millions of customers who bought a copy be offended enough to file a claim (even taking into account that half of those folks probably just wanted the free money anyway?) Maybe because the goal of the game is to rob, beat and murder anyone who stands your way in order to become the greatest professional criminal in the city. Who cares if you see some boobs along the way?

The one thing games and porn have in common is that people use them to act out fantasies that can't happen—and that you probably wouldn't even want to happen—in real life. As violent and sexy as they can be, they're completely harmless for the most part—and the kind of gamer who enjoys running over police officers probably wouldn't be too put out by a little animated nudity. And we don't have to remind everyone once again that while extreme violence is routinely overlooked in pretty much all media, the merest hint of sex sends certain people screaming for the hills. Those same people think everyone else will follow—but as the results of this lawsuit show, they won't.

(Oh, by the way, the lawyers who brought the suit are looking to collect around $1.3 million in legal fees for their trouble. The 2,676 claim holders combined will receive less than $30,000.)

· Hidden Sex Scenes Draw Ho-Hum, Except From Lawyers (NYTimes.com)
· Should you care about sex in video games? (cnet.com)

The conflict also has something to do with a "moral continuum," which we thought was some kind of weapon on "Star Trek" but apparently is something that measures how much trouble you're currently in with your girlfriend. Which leads us all back to our original question: Is looking at porn the "equivalent" of cheating on your significant other? We were going to make this today's poll question ... but given our readership, we think we know how that one would turn out. Leave your thoughts in the comments anyway.

· "8 Signs Your Partner is Addicted to Porn" (foxnews.com)
· "Honey, I Think You Should Know, I’ve Been Seeing Joanna Angel" + "Porndultery" (juliansanchez.com)
· Porn and Adultery (Culture Wars) + Part (II) (theatlantic.com)
· The Douthat-Carter Continuum (willwilkinson.net)
· A Post Calculated to Boost TNR's Web Traffic (tnr.com)
· To the People: 9. He Blogs Less (tothepeople.com)

· Thumb via Cheating Strap-on Lesbians (lesbianstraponparty.com)

# Recordings of women experiencing orgasms
# Videos of nude men participating in "ejaculation educational demonstrations"
# Detailed photographs of men and women masturbating
# Images of mammary intercourse
# Close-up images of topless women and male and female sexual anatomy
# Large-scale photos of men performing oral sex on one another (and performing oral sex on themselves)
# An illustrated list of sex positions
# Threesomes
# Photos of nude strippers
# An image called "Virgin Killer" depicting a naked prepubescent girl from the 1976 cover of a Scorpions album (banned in the U.S.)

Our first thought upon reading this was that we are not spending enough time on Wikipedia. Our second was that we'd like to see some examples of this salacious content, because we had trouble finding any: those "nude" strippers are actually mostly* covered up, the sexual positions and anatomy photos are no worse than what you would find in a (really cool) biology textbook or on the Discovery Channel, and the gay fluffer pictures are tastefully non-explicit (at least by our standards*). What a ripoff!

Not only is this an unusually misguided display of anti-porn hysteria—anyone looking for free unblocked smut can do a lot better than Wikipedia—but their complaints show a shocking misunderstanding of how Wikipedia actually works. It's completely created, edited and policed by its users —i.e. anyone and everyone—and if there's a problem the users are the ones who fix it.

Take that infamous 1976 Scorpions album cover, which could be considered child pornography: it might have been banned, but one could also argue that it has some sort of historical relevance. If the community doesn't agree, then the community of Wikipedia users can remove it ... which they did are still debating**. (Here's the ongoing discussion about it, which predates the WND article by almost three years.)

Tattling to the FBI about nudie pics on the internet is like complaining to Congress about evolution. Hating it enough won't make it go away. Besides, one way or another people have to learn about strippers—so it's either on Wikipedia or in a strip club. Take your pick.

· "Is Wikipedia wicked porn?" + "Naked young girl photo troubles 'Wikipedophilia'" (wnd.com)
· Fluffing (Wikipedia)
· Wikipedia T-Shirt (bustedtees.com)

* Updated to reflect some specific photos which a reader bought to our attention after we posted this entry; however, we still don't think they're anywhere near as bad as the WND article makes them out to be.

** Update (5/9): Another reader has informed us that the banned Scorpions album cover has been restored to the Wikipedia post in question since we first posted about the issue, and the debate about it among Wikipedia users continues.

Except ... DVD sales have been trending downward for years now, way ahead of the rest of the economy's troubles; it's more about the changing options for porn buyers than a general lack of consumer confidence. Bart also claims that guys can't find "gonzo" DVDs, even though in the next paragraph he points out that online porn (where all the money is going) is driven by short clips devoid of any story or frills. Hmmm. (Also, "Deep Throat" was somehow to blame for the '70s energy crisis.)

Maybe there's something to the fact that when porn does bad, we all do bad. But it's a pretty flimsy link if you ask us. After all, what else are people supposed to turn to when they don't have anything else to spend their money on? Just because you didn't want to spend $34.95 for another Jenna Jameson compliation disk and decided to jerkoff to something you found on RedTube instead didn't force you to buy that bad mortgage too, did it?

· "Hard times ahead as porn goes soft?" (variety.com)
· Thumb via TeraPatrick.com via sxx.com, via askjolene.com

As a former state attorney general, Spitzer was extremely well-versed in the law and (more importantly) how law enforcement works—federal investigation techniques, wiretapping, complex money laundering manuvers. He even prosecuted several high profile prostuitution investigations cases himself, so it's baffling that he would not only partake of the company of ladies of the night, but that he apparently made almost zero effort to conceal his actions. The most interesting revelation is that he was not a high-profile client caught up in a prostitution racket; the call girls were the ones who got caught up in an investigation of him. It was his own bank that tipped off the IRS about suspicious transactions, which eventually lead to the bust of the Emperor's Club last week.

Oh yeah, there's also the hookers. Everyone seems to be delighting in the screenshots of headless torsos and "diamond" ratings and interpretations of antiquated federal laws, but mostly they seem to enjoy the opportunity to call people "whores" in polite company. Because it's about sex, you see, and we have to pretend that it's dirty and evil, even though we all secretly get a big kick out of it because we all realize that the greatest harm done so far is that a young woman was "transported" across state lines for immoral purposes. (Oh, and he maybe liked to bang prostitutes without condoms, but that's a different scandal altogether.) Our dream of a sex-positive governor leading the fight against harsh and outdated criminal laws will probably not come to pass, but we are pleasantly surprised that this case has led at least a few people to ask why prostitution is illegal in the first place.

There's been a lot of comparisons to sex scandals past and how remarkably easy it's been for most politicians to hang on and save their careers, but there's one key difference between those earlier offenders and Spitzer. He paid for it. Cheating on your wife is forgivable, but a tough on crime crusader breaking the law is not. The consensus seems to be that indictment or no (the real unfairness with prostitutions laws is that it's very difficult and rare to prosecute johns, although they pretty much have this one dead to rights), Spitzer will not be the governor for long. That's too bad, because the longer this discussion goes on and the more we realize that anyone can and will pay for sex, the greater the chance that our attitudes and our laws might actually change. Of course, that also means all the horrible "Spitzer Swallow" jokes will continue indefinitely, but we suppose you can't have everything.

· Revelations Began in Routine Tax Inquiry (nytimes.com)
· Spitzer's Apology Video + Did One Of These Ladies Take Down the Governor? (Gawker)
· Spitzer Linked To Hooker Probe (thesmokinggun.com)
· "Why is prostitution illegal?" (slate.com)
· "Have you been a whore?" (wakingvixen.com; see also "The World's Oldest Profession" audio @ wnyc.org)
· "Eliot Spitzer's Whores" (Wonkette)
· Foes push for Spitzer's resignation over link to prostitution ring (cnn.com)
· Washingtons most infamous hotel room for now (Examiner.com)
· Clinton Campaign Removes Eliot Spitzer's Name From List Of Endorsements (radaronline.com)
· Sex scandals in U.S. politics (reuters.com)

That fact alone wouldn't bother us so much if we didn't then have to sit on our hands as Diggers bestow link love on all kinds of racy material from more "respectable" sites. For example, recent front page winners on Digg included a link to Terminator fuckbots that we featured here a while back (before it became a traffic bonanza for our geeky brothers at Gizmodo—and don't even get us started on that doggie sex toy post .) The point is that we often engage in some good, relatively harmless fun that the Digg community obviously enjoys, yet we aren't allowed in the the front door because we're "one of those" sites.

Now, we don't expect folks to start linking to our daily hardcore Flesh Flicks videos or anything ... but surely there must be some middle ground where porn lovers and folks with generous workplace filters can live in harmony. True, there have been several attempts to emulate the Digg model for adult sites, but they've all come up short.

Still, people love Digg and Digg lovers like sexy stuff. They helped earn a reprieve for that Fox News Porn parody after it was famously banned, other links submitted with "porn" or "extremely NSFW" in the headline do just fine ... and if you check out the "Best Of" lists from any of our sister sites, the most popular items (with or without Digging) are frequently sex related. So why can't we play along too?

Of course, cynics might say that this very post is just another shameless attempt to bait Digg and score some sweet hot pageview love of our very own. (And they'd be right—too bad we can't Digg this link.) Just don't tell us that you didn't want to share that Jesus fuck doll ad with all your friends in the 2.0 world. Even if stuff like that is probably what got us banned in the first place.

· Digg Terms of Use (digg.com)

Update: Those techie suck ups at Valleywag respond to our reasonable request.

Related (sorta):
· "Hotdoll: The Sex Doll for Dogs" (the most popular story of 2007 @ Gizmodo)
· In SF, Third Breast Is More Common Than Third Eye (io9)
· "The Top Five Reasons Digg Is Completely Useless For Finding Anything Related To Music" (Idolator)
· "All You Need to Know About Digg" (Gawker)
· "Denton to pay bloggers based on traffic" (Valleywag)

* * * * *

Previously: Is Fox News Too Hot For TV?, Hot Hexadecimal Dildo Porn: Digg This!, Dig for Porn, MoSexIndex, Splutr: More Social Porn, Fantasti.cc Videos: Community Rated Smut, Porn 2.0: Haven't We Been Here Before?

Now, no one is saying that Billie's high class trick turner is a completely accurate portrayal of what prostitution is all about, or that the business isn't filled with its share of exploitation horror stories. But it's difficult to take an article about sex work seriously when it starts off with a wildly ignorant assertion like "It is hard to understand why a woman who isn't a drug addict would become a prostitute." If you can't accept that someone would voluntarily enter the sex trade and not immediately destroy their life, the conversation pretty much stops there. "Karen", the subject of the interview, claims she was sexually abused, addicted to alcohol and drugs, poor and alone. But maybe it never occurs to those who wag their fingers at sex workers that the reason marginalized women end up as prostitutes is because the profession itself is so marginalized. Treat them like outcasts, and that's exactly what you'll get.

· "Emine Saner interviews a prostitute about what her life is really like" (guardian.co.uk)

Previously: Billie Piper Answers The "Call Girl"

Instead of railing against porn's hidden dangers, at least one columnist makes the case that what the world really needs now is more venues like YouPorn, or at least more places where amateurs can share their own lovemaking exploits and show the curious how it's done. Caitlin Moran of the TImes UK sings the praises of the site and its ability to present sex the way it really looks—lumpy, poorly lit, a bit awkward, and generally out of focus. After all, we can't all do pile drivers under a waterfall with big-breasted nymphos. So when it comes to fucking, maybe sometimes it's better not to learn from the pros and take the DIY approach instead. Just please try to line camera up properly.

· "A good role model for the sexually naive" (timesonline.co.uk)
· See what she's talking about here, here, and here (YouPorn)

Previously: Blogging YouPorn (And Other Places, Too)