meet Asami

I have had a video for a couple of years, part of my collection. It shows a young Japanese woman pretending to be a tour guide on a coach. She has sex with several men on the coach. She is wearing the uniform of tour guides, with a yellow jacket and hat.

I found out that her name is Asami and if you buy the DVD there is another video of her having sex at a hot spring or spa. I found out that there are other DVDs, one where she is a nurse. This is not soft porn, you see her having full sex and seeming to enjoy it.

In none of these films is there any slapping or strangling. At least, in none of her pornographic films. I found out just recently though that in Japan she is a well recognised and well respected mainstream actress of horror movies. Many of them extremely violent.

I found out that her full name is Asami Sugiura, in Japanese 杉浦 亜紗美. She's not as pretty as some of the women in Japanese pornographic videos, such as Kotomi Asakura, Iori Mizuki and Aika in her early days. Kotomi has also made the move from hard core pornography into mainstream movies.

Perhaps Asami's most violent movie was The Machine Girl which 'is particularly famous for its over-the-top violence and gore, featuring scenes with extreme action and bloodshed'.

I was listening to a radio programme last night which said that teenage boys are watching pornographic videos featuring slapping and strangling. Teenage girls are suffering because they are getting slapped and strangled. Yet most pornographic videos do not have slapping or strangling. So how is it that teenage boys will see it as normal?

It reminds me of a forum where people were saying that pornography is causing a rise in popularity in anal sex leading to pain and bleeding for girls. They cited some research which they thought would back their claim. Yet if you looked at the research, the recent rise is said to be due to 'TV shows including Sex and the City and Fleabag'.

So do we need to ban Sex and the City and Fleabag? As well as horror and action movies? They're not going to want that. Even though it might save teenage girls from sore bottoms and other places.

I am showing you a picture below of Asami in the film 'The Machine Girl' and another from the film 'Gun Woman'. There is another picture from Gun Woman that shows her naked and covered in blood and shooting. I'm not showing that one because I don't like it. I won't be watching any of her horror or action movies. I don't like them.

What really annoys me is that when I tried to find out about Asami on Microsoft Bing Copilot (AI) it wouldn't let me. I could find out about her co-star in The Machine Girl, Minase Yashiro. So it doesn't have a problem with extreme violence. That must be a bit confusing for any horror or action fans who aren't aware of her coach excursions.

I have got more than one blog, all with Google Blogger. Most of them are not controversial. When I try to look at these blogs I can see them no problem. When I try to look at my sex blog it will not let me and often say something stupid about security certificates or something.

It annoys me because if you are going to censor you should at least have the decency to say that you are censoring and not tell a lie. It isn't moral to tell lies. It isn't moral to stop people from seeing information that could help them make an informed choice about social and moral issues.

am I being censored?

I just noticed today that many of my posts and one of my pages have been removed from this blog. I will try to rectify this but in the meantime be aware that many of my posts and pages could disappear over the next few days. Anyone who can give me advice on this feel free to comment.

These posts are valuable. The post about the Soho 'maid' Wendy - for example - is about of Soho history. My post about nostalgia for Liverpool and Soho is about Liverpool and Soho history. The information is not found anywhere else. I don't understand why they are violating 'Community Guidelines'.

my porn experiment

In my last post I wrote that Sara Pascoe is very fair on the subject of pornography but not so much on the subject of prostitution. The Oxford Professor Amia Srinivasan is the opposite though. She has written that internet porn sites control what people see, 'bringing their sexual tastes into conformity'.

"As Shira Tarrant, author of The Pornography Industry, observes: 'If you are interested in something like double oral, and you put that into a browser, you're going to get two women giving one guy a blowjob ... you're not likely to get two men or two people giving a woman oral sex' She adds: 'Online-porn users don't necessarily realize that their porn-use patterns are largely moulded by a corporation.'"

People who are anti porn will just believe this, as Amia seems to have done. I though decided to see for myself, and the results were quite interesting. I typed 'double oral' into Google and was presented with twenty images. I chose to look at images rather than videos because my wifi doesn't allow me to look at PornHub or the main video sites. I could have seen a tiny picture of each video in Google search but in my experience it's not so easy to assess the content of the videos from just a tiny pic or even from the title.

By the way, I have managed to circumvent this censorship. I have found a site which not only can I look at with my wifi but I can download videos from. It is called porntrex.com. You can't download from PornHub now, as I reported a few posts back. I have downloaded lots of videos featuring beautiful Japanese women. I don't have a thing for East Asian women, I have a thing for beautiful women: for some reason the most beautiful women appear in Japanese porn. I would love to interview Kotomi Asakura and ask her about her life.

Getting back to my porn experiment, eight out of the twenty pictures that I saw when I Googled 'double oral' were of two women and one man. Seven showed two men with one woman. Two of them were indistinct. One of them showed two gay men. One of them showed two men and a 'shemale'. One of them was two women giving oral sex to another woman.

And if you don't believe me, try it for yourself. You probably won't get exactly the same results but you can see that what porn critic Shira Tarrant wrote is nonsense. It isn't true that it's all the same. There is enormous diversity. Men's sexual desires aren't being 'moulded by a corporation'. What is presented has been moulded by people's desires. Heterosexual, homosexual, trans, cis.

They say that porn is ubiquitous in modern society. In one way it is, although I can't access PornHub. In another way it isn't, because it seems that so many people haven't looked at it. If they had, they wouldn't say the stupidest things about it. They are convinced that it is all violent. Society has become sexualized, so they say.

I wish I could show you all of the pictures but I don't want this blog to show pornographic images. I will show you the one where the two women give oral sex to another woman. You can't see anyone's genitals or breasts. You can see pubic hair though, some people believe that it's never seen in porn - people who have never seen it. Some people will be disgusted and horrified but I think it's quite sweet.

There's a film, Cinema Paradiso, where at the end a compilation of censored bits of films are shown. They are of people kissing and so on. It shows life, it shows joy, it shows passion.

Croydon Advertiser stops sex ads

In my previous post I said that I thought that the Croydon Advertiser had increased its prices for advertising, and this was why there were only a couple of sex ads in a recent issue and those were for a couple of escort agencies. Now I have learned that this newspaper has been forced to remove all sex ads. There is a blog post explaining what has happened.

The ban is supposed to be to reduce trafficking. However, if there are trafficked women in Croydon then why can't the police find them and rescue them? It's not going to make it easier to find trafficked women when there is no advertising. Where is the evidence that trafficking is widespread?

These sex ads weren't just for brothels and escort agencies, they were for independent sex workers too. They are going to suffer. They will have less work, less money, and may have to start doing things they don't really want to do, perhaps more dangerous things. The purpose of the ban seems to be to try and get rid of prostitution in any form.

Campaigners may think that prostitution requires advertising to exist. That is wrong. Prostitution can survive underground. It is already underground in the West African community. Driving prostitution underground will increase trafficking and make women more reliant on pimps. Some men who are denied access to willing independent sex workers would seek out these pimps.

There have been some posts about these issues on this blog.

Sadvertiser bows to pressure and drops brothel ads

Brothel ads are fine with me, says Croydon councillor
This post is quite interesting. It states what campaigning organization CCAT (Croydon Community Against Trafficking) believe.

CCAT “believe that allowing adverts for sexual services to be printed in local newspapers promotes and encourages the enslavement of women and children and fuels business and profits for traffickers and pimps.

“Now common front-page headlines about sexual attack and assaults on women, printed weekly in our local papers, cannot be disassociated from the advertisements for all kinds of sexual services printed in the back of the newspapers.”

CCAT believes “that the very base concept of ‘supply and demand’ for enslaved women and children is being perpetuated by this advertising”.

So CCAT thinks that women and children are enslaved because of prostitution. They think that violence against women is increased because of prostitution. They have no evidence for this. There is no research that shows this.

This post also gives the opinion of Brian Cooke chairman of Orpington Conservatives.

“You will never stop the sex trade. Being open and clear with girls in flats advertising legally is far better than being on street corners or driving them underground.”

I think that Brian Cooke has got it right.

When I go into Soho I pick up a copy of the free newspaper 'West End Extra' in Berwick Street. It has a 'Personal Services' section where there are lots of sex ads. I hope this newspaper will be able to continue without interference from prohibitionists.

I think that what has happened is that CCAT has been writing to other advertisers in the Croydon Advertiser and telling them the ususal rubbish about trafficking. CCAT may have suggested that these advertisers threaten to boycott the Croydon Advertiser, saying that they have to choose between them and us. If you don't remove the sex ads we will not longer advertise with you.

Most people think of trafficking as a some kind of immigration fraud, perhaps involving forged passports and people coming into the country hidden in the back of lorries. They think that women and children are being coerced and bought and sold by gangsters. Nearly all non-EU prostitutes in London have not been coerced but have chosen to join with an agency in their country of origin. They are no more trafficked that domestic or agricultural workers. I'm not saying everything is fine with them (or with domestic or agricultural workers), but their situation can only be improved with regulation. Before you can have regulation you have to have legalisation.

What I don't like about CCAT is that they are a dishonest organisation. They are dishonest in three ways. Firstly they use false statistics to back their claims. Secondly they pretend that all they want is to end trafficking and slavery for women and children (something we would all want) when what they really want is an end to all forms of prostitution. They are an odd assemblage of radical feminists, religious people and social conservatives. Thirdly they pretend that they give a damn about what happens to the women whose lives they affect. They don't care if the women are deported, if they are made poorer, or if they have to go deeper into a criminal underworld where they are more prone to violence.