Comments on: Smart sex content and getting paid

By: Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » Top 10 blog topics of 2008

Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » Top 10 blog topics of 2008 — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 04:22:39 +0000

[...] resist. All silly puns aside, though, the fact is traditional and online publications lost many important voices for positive sexuality this fall. The tanking economy and the precarious position of the media industry in particular was the [...]

By: The end of sexpertise | Sexerati

The end of sexpertise | Sexerati — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:07:29 +0000

[...] off from a writing gig: it’s another thing to watch that layoff turn up in a trend piece. And another. And another. My editor and I used to joke, it takes three to make a trend, but two in a recession. [...]

By: Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » New media filling the void, for passion and (maybe, sometimes) profit

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:22:53 +0000

[...] felt like writing about a few things that I think were missing from Monday’s post, related too blogging, bottom lines, media (new, traditional, and otherwise) and WHAT IT ALL [...]

By: BOINKOLOGY | Is This The End Of Sex Writing?

BOINKOLOGY | Is This The End Of Sex Writing? — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:55:33 +0000

[...] earliest sex heroes, Tristan Taormino) finding themselves axed due to budget cuts. Audacia Ray and Amber Rhea both have excellent pieces discussing the issue (which I encourage you to read), but I figured [...]

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:41:51 +0000

I know it’s not the main focus of this post, but your point about the abundance of free content reminds me of the series of posts written at Techdirt by Mike Masnick about a post-scarcity economy. He is a little wonky, but I think you might be interested. Here’s a link to one of his essays:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061115/020157.shtml

By: Amber

Amber — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:35:38 +0000

Gracie: Oh don’t be silly… Monopolize away! :D

By: Gracie (aka The Marketing Whore)

Gracie (aka The Marketing Whore) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:34:22 +0000

Not monopolize you site/blog, but that’s why I say I too would have views “sex columns” as the content to cut; it’s not the mission, the mainstay. And it will (as much as I hate it) cut ad revenues.

I’m not “for the removal of sex” at all ~ just being pragmatic about the situation. I wish it were different, really. But it’s not, so in discussing why these cuts happened… Reality time.

All of us who write about sex, however we define it, our work, our writing, we need to make some decisions about how we will proceed. This conversation & others like it are great strides in that, I think. More info to make decisions with. :)

By: Amber

Amber — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:22:45 +0000

I have a fairly strong suspicion that places like Valleywag included sex content as a way to drive traffic bc of the “titillation factor” – which is irritating, but my hope is that even if that’s what initially “lures” people to a site/publication, maybe they’ll stick around and learn something.

By: Gracie (aka The Marketing Whore)

Gracie (aka The Marketing Whore) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:41:33 +0000

Thanks for writing this (blanks and all lol). I realize I’ve spoken a lot about this, but it’s not over for me; I may have to write loads more…

But to clarify, I’m not saying that sex should be kept in its place or that, as you said, that “sex content sequestered only to publications that explicitly advertise themselves as being ‘in the business of sex education.’” Not at all.

What I meant (still mean) is that since sex positivity wasn’t really a core value of each company/publication, sex was clearly spotted as an “add on” a “loss leader”. I’m not saying ValleyWag or anyone should be even 50% sex either. Just that overall the plan for sex to be included, the commitment to being sex positive or sexually balanced or whatever you want to call it, was poor.

Bah. I’m going on & on again.

I clearly have more to say/write. I hope we all do ~ because this conversation shouldn’t be over.