Yalana of Dame Fate:
I like Russ Myers. I would say that I am a modern day Russ Myer girl. I used to be in a band called Miss May 66. This was named after the centerfold of Miss May in 1966 Dolly Read, the singer of the Carrie Nation or the Kelly Affai in the movie Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. I have many 1950 - 1970S Playboys lying around my house but ...I'm not much for gash shots.. I like the sympathy for the records calendar girls and I like the bedroom eyes shots and would not mind to do it, but as far as the whole gash shot thing.... not so much. And if someone I'm with has to watch a porno to ...ah hem... get off then they're missin' out on the real thing, which is me. And yes it would be time for them to find another lover. Leo's need a lot of petting to become tame but didn't Riot Girl survive on stripping?

Fiona of Pornshot:
Pictures of lovely woman..no porn as far as I could see. Oh well. It's good to have different kinds of women to look at I guess, like some "alternative". But what is punk rock about it and what is porn about it? You see naked women like that every day in every kind of magazine. If you want porn you look somewhere else, like renting a movie. And why is it only women?

Kitty of the Kowalskis:
There's a reason why it's sex, drugs and rock and roll. Some people like porn, some folks don't, but most porn isn't very punk rock - it's not very DiY, it's all about phoniness and fantasy, most of it is just plain silly. Maybe I have a different view, but if I'm a punker and I want some sex, I just go out and get it. I never understood too much why people would watch something they could do, like some sports on TV. Usually, porn is like dinosaur rock, corporate, trying to look real, but it's people who are just in it for the cash. Not that people shouldn't get paid for what they do, but I'd rather make music, which I love, and get paid for it, than turn something fun into just a job, which is kinda how porn seems to me. Just fake and silly, and an industry run by fat old cokeheads, not punkers. Even the supposedly DiY stuff is fake. It's like Pro wrestling.

Kirsten of Meet the Virus/Naked Aggression:
There's nothing particularly punk about either of the sites you mention (burningangel.net and suicidegirls.com). It's the exploitation and fetishization of a youth sub-culture. It doesn't cheapen punk because it is no more a part of it than the bands played on the local radio station. As with all dialogues, a definition must be set down to determine the parameterss of that which is being discussed. That said, the definition of punk doesn't include any form of pornography. Pornography takes a base human desire and exploits it for cash. That's what we like to commonly refer to as Capitalism. We also like to think that exploiting our fellow and sister human beings' weaknessess, for monetary gains, is not a principle of punk. People will try to justify whatever they do, no matter how wrong. Punk and pornography are completely exclusionary concepts. I don't care if someone has dyed their hair red, pierced their lip and pulled down their drawers for the camera.

Lexa Vonn of Ophelia Rising:
In the beginning punk rock was designed to shock mainstream society into exploring the alternatives of the norm. Graphic images of sex and violence were a large part of this re-conditioning. These days, graphic images of sex and violence are the norm...hell, our last election was Bush (sex) against Gore (violence). So, I ask you is continuing with an unconditioning that has become the condition really serving its purpose anymore? And do those that view it really consider punk rock ethics when they're jerking off? Maybe...who's to say? It's all cliche. I'd rather see a pornsite of fully clothed virgins smiling. That would be taboo in 2002.

Rachel of Fuzbuni:
I wasn't really familiar with this "punk rock" porn. So I did some research. I went to the Suicide Girls web site and I liked what I saw! REAL WOMEN! These women(yes women, not 15 year old girls) obviously are so secure in who they are that they aren't afraid to flaunt it. They are free, free to be and look however they want. There wasn't any silicone, or Barbie like construction, just women who are proud of their bodies. To me there isn't anything more beautiful. So what's the problem? I'll tell you what the problem is: it's the punk rock elitism! Since when has there been rules? Punk has become a commodity, a look, a product. I went to some bulletin board, I think it was some New Jersey punk page, and two wankers were bantering back and forth about how it was the upstate "mods" fault that all this punk porn started. It's just like high school. Who's cool and who's not. I always thought that punk rock should've been above that, that immature bullshit! So if you ask me, which you did, there isn't a damn thing wrong with "punk rock" porn, I might even become a member of the Suicide Girls!

Ritchey of the Badger King:
Basically, I think the concept of "punk rock porn" is almost an oxymoron. It is totally lame and totally wrong and I feel very gross about it. Just because some girl has hairy armpits, then her objectification is all of a sudden empowering or something? I don't get it. Like, porn is sexist and misogynist and all that, but if the girls are "alternative" then it becomes cool? Objectifying women sexually is the same whether it's playboy or peaches (a discussion in and of itself!), in my opinion. Just because you "choose" to objectify YOURSELF doesn't mean it's legit. And that argument doesn't take into account all the socialization we've had over the centuries about women and bodies and women as sex objects.