Originally Posted by dcortez

That's great to hear!

I do appreciate that Peer Review is a Pandora's Box, but I don't think there is a better industry than ours to address the challenge of distilling/defining a model which balances 'Freedom of Expression' with 'Accountability for Expression' (visa vi economic harm to the industry, lost opportunities/access to markets, undermining accomplishments in cultural acceptance, etc.).

The scope of what I was proposing may (understandably) step outside of the core mandate of FSC. The difficulty in achieving a tolerant (at the very least) mainstream perception of the adult industry is compounded when the extreme niche producers get 'mixed in' with the less mysogonistic producers and the public sees us as the worst and most extreme examples available.

This is definitely a pardox. I don't want to limit anyone's ability to produce any creative works they choose (aside from the obvious exploitive stuff), but I also don't want my efforts and investments in my own 'textures' of erotica and adult entertainment to be materially undermined by those (albiet legal) working at the other end of the scale. How do we acheive this?

I suppose separate professional associations could contain the guidelines and standards to establish and maintain their own repective positions in culture and the marketplace (eg. Soft Erotic Entertainment Association, Extreme Free For All Group, etc) without infringing on any freedoms of expression.

I believe the accounting world has several classes of accounting professionals - maybe adult could be handled the same way, so those who want to penetrate the mainstream world more effectively won't be hampered by those who scare mainstreamers.

Or, do you think that an ideal success for FSC would be for mainstreamers to not be scared of anything?

-Dino