The truth is, though they would deny it, that the authoritarians truly find it in their interest for there to be readily available copious amounts of material that commodifies and dehumanizes sex.
In this case, I think it's a mistake to view the government as an individual entity. I've studied a lot of obscenity and smut cases, and while the judiciary has tried to strike some sort of principled balance on free speech, the executive branches (at state and federal levels) have, at various times, put a hell of a lot of energy and resources into trying to shut down pornogrpahers. They have had the most success when they've allied themselves with feminist theorists and fought porn from the "porn = violence against women" angle.
So while I agree with part of your other comment, that independent producers are going to be hurt the worst in this war on porn, I also think that people who produce images that are blatantly violent (BDSM) are going to be the major targets of the campaign.
I am a sadomasochist. While I don't have much of a taste for mainstream sadomasochistic porn (and particularly the porn coming from nations with less strict employment laws, etc.), I am a subscriber of dyke-made for-dykes made-in-the-USA porn, and the images I like most don't really celebrate "the beauty of life and sex", at least not in a conventional sense. Have you ever seen "Bittersweet"? In my opinion, it's one of the most beautiful life-celebrating films I ever saw, but if the "average" person were to see it, they'd probably be put off by the beating and the needles. I think it would be an error to try to categorize what I look at as somehow more healthy than other mainstream SM porn. It's healthier in that there are more safeguards available to protect the people who create it, but the actual content involves images of real sadomasochism, real violence.
Chances are, it's likely to be a vulnerable target of the War on Porn precisely because it involves images of violence against women, and the "violence-against-women" theory is the weapon that anti-porn prosecutors like to rely on most. They may go after it because they're threatened by women's sexuality, but they'll shut it down because of the element of violence. Anything that prosecutors can describe as misogynist is a more vulnerable target.
And I think the thing that bothers me most with your approach, that porn that "celebrates life" is more okay, is that that reminds me of the other angle that prosecutors have used, that porn which depicts "unnatural" acts is obscene (illegal and without 1st amendment protection). They use this to shut down video stores that include gay male porn or anal sex. "Natural", just like "celebrating beauty and life", are such subjective terms, that in the hands of the authorities, that test is going to be used first to exclude people on the sexual fringe, while only really protecting the soft-focus gentle hetero how-to-please-your-spouse 1980s tantric stuff.
I realize that you're also a bit out on the fringe with me, and I don't mean to be rude in the way I disagree with you. I'm just extremely wary of arguments that the content of porn can be easily categorized into acceptable and not acceptable, because while you didn't mention "violence" as a key factor, it's the first factor that regulators tend to look at.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 12:59 pm (UTC)In this case, I think it's a mistake to view the government as an individual entity. I've studied a lot of obscenity and smut cases, and while the judiciary has tried to strike some sort of principled balance on free speech, the executive branches (at state and federal levels) have, at various times, put a hell of a lot of energy and resources into trying to shut down pornogrpahers. They have had the most success when they've allied themselves with feminist theorists and fought porn from the "porn = violence against women" angle.
So while I agree with part of your other comment, that independent producers are going to be hurt the worst in this war on porn, I also think that people who produce images that are blatantly violent (BDSM) are going to be the major targets of the campaign.
I am a sadomasochist. While I don't have much of a taste for mainstream sadomasochistic porn (and particularly the porn coming from nations with less strict employment laws, etc.), I am a subscriber of dyke-made for-dykes made-in-the-USA porn, and the images I like most don't really celebrate "the beauty of life and sex", at least not in a conventional sense. Have you ever seen "Bittersweet"? In my opinion, it's one of the most beautiful life-celebrating films I ever saw, but if the "average" person were to see it, they'd probably be put off by the beating and the needles. I think it would be an error to try to categorize what I look at as somehow more healthy than other mainstream SM porn. It's healthier in that there are more safeguards available to protect the people who create it, but the actual content involves images of real sadomasochism, real violence.
Chances are, it's likely to be a vulnerable target of the War on Porn precisely because it involves images of violence against women, and the "violence-against-women" theory is the weapon that anti-porn prosecutors like to rely on most. They may go after it because they're threatened by women's sexuality, but they'll shut it down because of the element of violence. Anything that prosecutors can describe as misogynist is a more vulnerable target.
And I think the thing that bothers me most with your approach, that porn that "celebrates life" is more okay, is that that reminds me of the other angle that prosecutors have used, that porn which depicts "unnatural" acts is obscene (illegal and without 1st amendment protection). They use this to shut down video stores that include gay male porn or anal sex. "Natural", just like "celebrating beauty and life", are such subjective terms, that in the hands of the authorities, that test is going to be used first to exclude people on the sexual fringe, while only really protecting the soft-focus gentle hetero how-to-please-your-spouse 1980s tantric stuff.
I realize that you're also a bit out on the fringe with me, and I don't mean to be rude in the way I disagree with you. I'm just extremely wary of arguments that the content of porn can be easily categorized into acceptable and not acceptable, because while you didn't mention "violence" as a key factor, it's the first factor that regulators tend to look at.