I suppose it is not impossible her work life could cross over into her home life, ie: some stalker who might harm her child. This is of course made much more possible by the release of her real name.

However, the risk of potentially endangering family members is something that occurs in many professions - especially in law enforcement / justice. Would people say a police officer or a judge should be denied visitation? After all, if they've been doing their job, there are likely a number of criminals out there who hold a grudge.

Of course, sexual abuse has been going on long before the internet, but the idea that the spread and mainstreaming of pornography through the internet has a had desensitizing effect on the culture at large is one that needs further exploration. To me, this kind of assertion makes sense and seems correct.

Try the "Nascar defense" for a speeding ticket and see how well this thinking works.

There's a line between what's legal and what's not. If you cross it, you're responsible. The law holds you liable even if you're ignorant of the law. "Desensitization" is just saying that you've seen so much of it that it seems normal. That's just another way to claim ignorance.

I've done porn. I'm a parent. That would really suck for me.

It's Andre Romelle Young.

Now someone reading BS will find him and stalk him, and I'll be the bad guy. :(

Matt Smith of the San Francisco Weekly is a truly unprofessional reporter, and probably a man lacking the normal chunk of empathy that the rest of us are equipped with.

Her hubby knew she did porn, he probably thought she was minor player, probably didn't know she had a following. I bet in addition to wanting full custody of the kid, he wants a large increase in child support $$$.

It's not clear how he found out. Mz Berlin "speculates" about how her ex found out in this article, but she doesn't tell us exactly how he found out. I also question if he had full or shared custody before Mz Berlin was "outed." (California is far from LA; exactly how would shared custody have worked if they did have it?) It specifically states that Mz Berlin's visitations rights were "erased." It says nothing about shared custody in the first place. If her ex's sole concern was an increase in child support, why do everything possible to deprive Mz Berlin of her ability to work in her place of residence: Hollywood? There are way too many loose ends in this story for me.

To people who say she'd be recognized anyway, many authors do not use their real names even though they have their photos and bios on the back cover. Freaky fans don't need that info, it won't screen out someone very determined, but it will screen out a good number of troubled people.

Yes, it is possible that there are writers who want to hide their identities for a variety of reasons, but I don't know many who choose to put a recognizable picture of themselves on the cover in their efforts to protect themselves. Considering this is the internet era, can any individual who embarks on a sexually orientated profession, particularly online, really expect to maintain the same level of privacy enjoyed by similarly employed individuals twenty years ago? Things have changed a lot within the last ten years. A little common sense and suitable caution should be in play here.

She used an entertainment name, probably didn't wear stilletos and BDSM gear to the local Starbucks, she was able to blend in.

Considering she was based in Hollywood, I'd imagine it is hard to tell the civilians from the professionals most of the time anyway, but still, the assumption of complete anonymity is not guaranteed and that is something Mz Berlin should have considered as an occupational hazard.

You make some valid points, but

Yes, it is possible that there are writers who want to hide their identities for a variety of reasons, but I don't know many who choose to put a recognizable picture of themselves on the cover in their efforts to protect themselves.

It's funny, I went to a book signing a little bit ago for an author that's a best seller. For some reason she's taken some flack for not being willing to share her real name. I think that's her business.

...is almost everything in Broadsheet about genitals?

This is why the journalistic pink ghetto.

"Women's issues" are generally flagged as about what we do with (or don't do with or have done unto) our genitals.

That's limited. That's BORRRRRRING.

That's relegated to the "subject matter pink ghetto" and ON GOES THE REST OF THE WORLD WITH ISSUES LIKE WAR AND BOMBING VILLAGES AND HEALTH CARE AND HUNGER AND HOPE OR THE LACK THEREOF BUT NOOOOOOOOOOO....

Broadsheet (via editorial policy) segregates us by what's going on beneath our short-'n'curlies.

Arrrggghhh. Drives me nuts.

Okay, now I'll go read the article.

(I apologize in advance if I've Missed the Point.)

No. Of course not.

Morality isn't about whether you choose to let people film what you're doing with your genitals.

That said, given reality, any parent who does porn will need to be extremely gifted and brave and revolutionary in order to prepare their child to assimilate the realities of:

1) what this culture is

2) what role the parent chose to play in the culture

If you're willing to tackle that, and teach your child to be an outlyer in order to hold their chin up and love you and walk beside you in wholeness, then bravo.

My main question is, why are we so miserably messed up about loving each other than we project it into a film industry instead of learning how to trust and touch?

There's no need for porn in cultures where people can make eye contact and don't hit.

It's nit-picking whether you "get to keep visitation" when the culture is sick enough to produce porn in the first place, imo.