The New Ads for ICM Registry’s Dot-XXX

by Violet Blue on February 3, 2012

Hmmm… What’s insulting, reductive and straight-up shitty about the new ads for .XXX?

Maybe that porn is not, in fact, moving its prime .com real estate to .XXX?
Maybe that women are not pieces of sexualized furniture?
Maybe that the women in porn are people – not objects 24-7?
Maybe that a representation of a permanently sexually receptive woman is rapey?
Maybe that some porn webmasters are also women?
Maybe that all of these things are an inaccurate representation of porn?

I’m just guessing. Feel free to add your opinion in the comments.

It’s not much better than the first round back in December, which has *interesting* African-American stereotypes in it.

The other two new ones:

{ 6 comments }

1 Lou February 11, 2012 at 1:15 am

“Maybe that all of these things are an inaccurate representation of porn?”

All of these are a perfectly accurate representations of the main stream porn industry and the message it permeates.

2 amanda36c February 7, 2012 at 3:21 pm

That’s precisely how they see us; as objects. That has to be the most disgusting display of disrespect this industry has ever shown us. Their supposed “support” from the adult industry for this self-serving money-grab venture they refer to as .XXX is a sick joke and everyone with a dot com or a reputation to protect is a victim, and at the butt fucking end of it. Little do they even realize that this never had the support of anyone who wasn’t directly involved, stood to gain from it, or paid well enough to vouch for these sick bastards!

I’ve been waiting since spetember 13th for this performer’s program, they announced, to come out. 5 months later and nada. I wanted to buy my dot xxx but they blocked me from doing so and put me into that performer’s program instead, giving me no choice in the matter. I own my dot com, but wait, ICM Registry’s lawyer (Sheri Falco) is also Webpower’s lawyer. Webpower owns my dot net. I grandfathered the dot com. Doesn’t matter I guess huh? I don’t have a lawyer who also works for ICM, so I guess that dot xxx is never really going to be an option for me, is it? Look up who owns amanda36c.net and then look at who did the trademarks for that company. It’s Falco.

Conflict of interest? Indeed. I have several Wordpress blogs on this topic. If anyone’s interested in reading them, you’re welcome to. Just Google “amanda36c wordpress”. I hope it’s OK to point to my blog here, Voilet. Thanks for posting this. We need to fight these pricks. Everyone!

3 Rock February 5, 2012 at 1:34 pm

I think the ads are hilarious…. If you put them out of all political and whatnot contexts that have been plagng these initiatives, they are plain funny…

4 Len February 4, 2012 at 6:46 pm

I “like” how many the guys in these ads are old and ugly, in contrast to the younger and more beautiful women in the same ads. It doesn’t help their case at all. =_=

5 Peter February 3, 2012 at 9:24 pm

I agree with you absolutely Violet. Sad thing is, why would the women in these adds even choose to participate in the first place?

Perhaps its just another job for them to make ends meet and principles be damned since principles don’t feed you?

6 Ms Naughty February 3, 2012 at 8:34 pm

Yep, these are seriously offensive and your points are well made.

But I guess these ads are indicative of the violated feeling most adult webmasters have about the whole .xxx affair. And the fucked-over feeling you get when you discover that someone else has registered your trade name in .xxx. Despite the fact that you grudgingly and unwillingly registered with ICM explicitly to stop that from happening. And the slightly ill feeling you had when ICM then used that registration to say you supported the idea of .xxx when pleading their case to ICANN. And that “used” feeling you get when ICM didn’t contact you or give you first option on your trade name – despite the fact you registered solely for that – and just let someone else have it.

Or is that just me?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: