pornography
12 Mar 2008
No One is Blaming the Web
The online pornography debate is not helped by making light of the subject, write Maree Crabbe and David Corlett. (Article contains material that may offend)
So, it's "just" pornography, according to Jessica Friedmann. And we - the authors of an article published in The Age on 3 January on internet pornography - should "calm down." Our article, Friedmann told readers of newmatilda.com, was "particularly alarmist".Both articles are part of an ongoing debate in Australia sparked by community unease over the growth of pornography, and by the Federal Government's intention to curb access to online pornography through "internet filtering".
Friedmann disputes our claim that the consumption of pornography is linked to violent attitudes and behaviors towards women. In the first instance, she attempts to dismiss our argument through the use of a literary device. By placing the word "research" in inverted commas, she seeks to indicate to her readers that the research upon which we based our article is illegitimate.
We cited one piece of research in our article. It was a report by Clive Hamilton and Michael Flood, the latter being one of Australia's pre-eminent scholars in this field. For reasons of style and space - our article appeared on the opinion page of a daily newspaper and was only 800 words long - we did not cite other works.
One important piece of research we had in mind when making our claims was an article by Neil Malamuth, Tamara Addison and Mary Koss published in the peer-reviewed Annual Review of Sex Research. The article, 'Pornography and Sexual Aggression: Are There Reliable Effects and Can We Understand Them?' provides a comprehensive analysis of the research investigating the links between pornography and sexual aggression, as well as an exploration of the authors' own research. Malamuth, Addison and Koss's analysis supports the "existence of reliable associations between frequent pornography use and sexually aggressive behaviours, particularly for violent pornography and/or for men at high risk of sexual aggression."
In contrast to this scholarly research, Friedmann tells us that "a quick search brings up hundreds of articles debating" the link between pornography and violence. That presumably means an internet search using a search engine such as Google. Such a search hardly qualifies as "research".
The second "major flaw" that Friedmann finds in our argument is that we "seriously and fundamentally misunderstand the way in which people use the internet, and to a lesser extent, pornography". The internet, unlike old media, is interactive. Users of the internet, unlike consumers of old media, are more savvy, more critical, more engaged with the medium. Indeed, according to Friedmann, because the internet is interactive, people are "as likely to be uploading their own homemade porn to the internet as downloading it." Friedmann produces no evidence to support this assertion.
Friedmann's celebration of user-generated internet pornography also demonstrates a lack of understanding of what drives the pornography industry. This is not an industry that is concerned with assisting people with disabilities or non-heteronormative sexualities to explore their sexuality. It is not philanthropy. It is an industry in which people like John Stagliano are the creative forces. According to Stagliano, a porn actor, director, producer, and distributor, "pussies are bullshit". Rather than vaginal sex, anal sex is, according to this logic, preferable, because the female actor can't fake it; it brings out more of her personality, it is more guttural, more animal, more real.
Indeed, painful and humiliating sex acts are an all too common expectation of female porn actors. Robert Zicari, aka Rob Black, co-owner of Extreme Associates, says that his work is about challenging taboos. His work includes, among other things that are not worth describing, having a woman do a "fellatio line, where the girl’s giving fellatio, and she's gagging so much she vomits".
Or there is porn director, Mitchell Spinelli, who is quoted as saying, "People want more. They want to know how many dicks you can shove up an a** ... It's like Fear Factor meets Jackass. Make it more hard, make it more nasty, make it more relentless. The guys make the difference. You need a good guy, who's been around and can give a good scene."
These are not the most extreme examples of the attitudes of those controlling the porn industry. But to describe others is probably unnecessary to convey the nature of the industry; it is an industry that turns women into objects and eroticises their violation and degradation. And while Friedmann tells us that young people are "canny" enough to understand that many of the images they may come across are "ludicrously clichéd", a clear delineation between the "fantasy" of pornography and the reality of violence against women cannot be assumed.
In the real world violence against women is widespread and its effects are devastating. As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said last year, "Violence against women and girls continues unabated in every continent, country and culture. It takes a devastating toll on women's lives, on their families, and on society as a whole. Most societies prohibit such violence - yet the reality is that, too often it is covered up or tacitly condoned."
Not that this would be of concern to the porn industry. It is driven by profit. It is a massive, global, profit-making industry. And, with the facilitation of new technology, it is growing. The United States' porn industry's revenue went from US$7 million in 1972, to US$8 billion - yes, billion! - in 1996 and US$12 billion in 2000. Forbes magazine estimated that the legal pornography business across the globe in the early part of this decade was worth $56 billion annually.
Friedmann concludes her article with yet more hyperbole. The world didn't collapse because of bikinis, she tells us. And it won't because of the internet. But who is arguing that it did or will? This is another debating device: exaggerate your interlocuters' position, make it look extreme and ridiculous, then tear it down. It may seem clever and convincing, but it fails to address the real issues.
Our concern, and the reason we wrote The Age article, is not with swimwear or to play the "let's-blame-the-internet" game. Rather, we are interested in thinking about and discussing what is healthy for individuals, their communities and society more generally. We are interested in engaging in a discussion about whether images of the sort that are now available with unprecedented ease and anonymity assist in promoting healthy and mutual ways of engaging with each other. In a world in which violence against women - and in particular, sexual violence - is so pervasive, debating such issues demands a certain urgency and seriousness.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Getting serious debate especially on blogs is not always easy.
There are large blogs in Australia where an issue like this would be ridiculed by the ‘We’re sophisticated adults and should have access to anything we want’ brigade. I use the word ‘sophisticated’ and ‘adults’ very loosely!
I support you in your endeavor to present this topic for urgent and serious debate (on N.M. there is a good chance that it will be treated that way).
Porn and the portraying of violence against women as entertainment works against social cohesion and healthy gender relationships.
We not only have to protect our children from porn but also protect some ‘adults’ from themselves.
www.dangerouscreation.com
It is this article that really is just more hyperbole:
1. The scholarly article they cite concludes:
"It is important to keep in mind that not only are pornographic stimuli only one part of a larger corpus of mass media images, but the role of media stimuli cannot be fully appreciated in isolation from other variables. Consideration must be given to the role of the media’s complex interactions with other influences. As we have attempted to emphasize, depending on such factors as the cultural milieu, the individual’s background, the particular content of the stimuli, the type of response focused on, and the way "harm" is defined, differing conclusions may result. Although sometimes these data may appear contradictory, a theoretical model that takes such distinctions into account is likely to reveal that the findings in this area are actually much more consistent. Associations between pornography consumption and aggressiveness toward women could be explained by a circular relationship between high coercive tendencies and interest in certain content in pornography, whereby aggressive men are drawn to the images in pornography that reinforce and thereby increase the likelihood of their controlling, impersonal, and hostile orientation to sexuality. The way relatively aggressive men interpret and react to the same pornography may differ from that of nonaggressive men. Clearly, the data showing particularly strong links for some men between sex, power, and, to some degree, aggression at both the arousal/emotional."
In other words: pornography is just ONE factor in the equation and it mostly has negative impacts on men with an EXISTING predisposition to aggression IN COMBINATION with other factors.
2. On Stagliano (‘Buttman’) and anal sex.
Your conflation all anal eroticism with’Indeed, painful and humiliating sex acts’ ignores that many people and some women do indeed desire such acts.
Indeed, Staglianno even teamed up with a lesbian producer Tristian Taomino (www.puckerup.com) to produce a series of videos on ‘how to’ precisely to teach people to avoid the situation where such acts are humilitaing or painful.
This article with its all "anal sex is evil" demagogery and distorted reading of research is far more offensive than the worst excesses of the porno industry.
"It’s difficult to imagine why any normal warm-blooded creatures would find an orifice that expels stinking bodily wastes sexually exciting or interesting.
"Of course, quite obviously, many humans are not normal!"
Funny: so I assume the 60-70% of gay men who regularly practice some form of anal sex are by definition ‘abnormal’?
Verily indeed, there is a very short jump from pornophobia to homophobia.
Question for all you pornophobes: Is it just when anal sex involves women that it cruel, nasty and dirty or when gay men enagage in such acts?
I feel there is an unfortunate tendency to equate the proposition "this particular piece of pornography is very unpleasant" with the proposition "pornography, as a concept, is inherently immoral", and then with the proposition "we must legislate against pornography".
I have no problem with the first when applied to some items I have encountered; I have problems with the second and third propositions.
I’ll go further and dismiss this article as a strawman argument.
Here is a definition, for future reference:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.
(quote from Wiki - I attribute my references)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Denigrating a web search as not research is disingenuous, to say the least. Show me a scholar that doesn’t use the internet for some of their research.
Joe and David,
I’ve deleted your comments. Please take this as a warning: your homophobic views are not welcome at newmatilda.com
Marni Cordell
Editor
No, not homophobic, just a distaste for anal sex, at least on my part, I can’t speak for David. But just as I have a distaste for drunken behaviour or heavy metal, I would support the right of people to drink or play whatever music they like, even to excess. Distaste for something, i.e. something that one would not do oneself, does not mean that one necessarily would forbid it generally. I don’t really like cats that much, they’re such selfish little buggers, not that I hate them but just that I would not own one if I could help it, but I would defend to the death the right of other people to have cats. I support the rights of gays to marry, to adopt, etc., but that doesn’t mean that I have to admire, or practise, the ways that they have sex. Chacun a son gout. But it’s not mine, and I have the right to explain why, and to express my preference for other forms of sexual enjoyment. That’s called sexual preference, and why is it right for some and not for others to trumpet their preferences ?
I prefer vaginal sex to anal sex, sex with humans rather than sex with animals or holes in the wall. I prefer classical and old R & R and jazz to heavy metal. I prefer to drink quietly and get pissed in a genteel, quiet sort of way. I prefer dogs. My preferences are as valid as anybody else’s. Equal rights for all, I say, Marni.
Joe
Dear Marni, would you provide a full list of acceptable viewpoints to guide those who, in the future, may wish to comment on N.M.?
Cheers.
Hi David,
Gladly. We do not pre-moderate comments and welcome all kinds — supportive, dissenting, critical or otherwise. However, we reserve the right to delete or censor comments that:
Are abusive
Promote hate of any kind
Attack the writer not the argument
Are blatantly off-topic
Do not contribute to the discussion
You can find our comments policy in the FAQ section
Cheers
Marni
I’m sure that david can take care of himself, but in my defence, can I please be allowed to point out that Poo-danger provoked some of this discussion with his leading question:
‘Question for all you pornophobes: Is it just when anal sex involves women that it cruel, nasty and dirty or when gay men enagage in such acts?’
How does ‘homophobia’ come into that ? Poo-danger demanded answers to his question about anal sex, for both women and men, and he got answers - answers he may not have liked, but still, that’s what you get when you try to force an issue.
I would deny that I am homophobic, I have relations and good friends who are gay, of both sexes. I support their equal human rights, to marry, adopt, inherit, etc., but their preferences, to the extent that they range towards anal sex, are not mine. End.
Joe
Marni, I read my deleted comment carefully.
It was not abusive!
It did not promote hate of any kind!
It did not attack Poodanggar (who was the one who raised the issue of anal sex)!
It was not blatantly off-topic given the mention of anal sex in the article itself.
And I was contributing to the discussion even if the view I put forward concerning anal sex is not politically correct in your eyes!
To be publicly humiliated and falsely accused of being a homophobe by N.M. is unacceptable to me.
I will contribute no further.
Part of the problem with this debate is the simplistic "porn is good/ok" vs "porn is bad".
Surely neither side has such a black and white view but are often characterized that way.
The same problem arises with the censorship aspect of the debate. Many progressives have been taught from a young age that censorship is evil.
But that is ridiculous. The issue has always been where you draw the line, not whether you have any censorship at all.
Even the most vehement anti censorship person usually agrees, when pressed that child porn should be banned (censored).
And if often turns out that many people who claim to be totally against censorship actually support things like cinema classifications and the laws that prevent minors buying dirty magazines at the newsagent.
HI David and Joe,
I’m happy to leave the question of homophobia right out of it. my point is that NM is not a forum for telling other people their personal choices are "not normal" or "disgusting". It’s not the kind of commentary we want on the site and it’s not the kind of commentary we want to encourage.
cheers
marni
I’ll come right out and say it; my black and white view is that porn is OK.
I think vodka is OK too, but I don’t want children drinking it. Does that mean I shouldn’t say "vodka is OK"?
Hi Marni,
Did I (or David) use those words ?
Do some NM readers and bloggers have privilege over others ? Is it PC now to slag anybody, for example, who questions the justifiability of pornography as a ‘pornophobe’ ? Is that part of NM policy ? I didn’t think so, but ….
Joe
So then, Marni, if we follow along with your argument, if I said that incest was disgusting and that paedophilia wasn’t normal I wouldn’t be welcome on N.M.
Where do you draw the line?
Not so long ago, homosexuality was a criminal offence. Gradually, through pressure from various sources, the line was blurred and, today, we have a different perspective, one that may or may not be positive for society as a whole, one that may confuse many kids as far as their sexual identity is concerned. But to question homosexuality or any facet of it is now a big no-no! Mainstream society has been gagged!
Perhaps, in the future, incest and pedophilia will end up the same because of minority pressure. Perhaps men who bash their wives will soon assert that ‘that is how we were born!’ and that means their behavior is normal and must be accepted!
It’s called the ‘slippery slope’.
hmmm.. you give ‘em enough rope..
And so it was that this theory of the internet was proved timeless.
Some of us are gay, some of us are straight (am I allowed to use that word?) We each have various preferences across the spoectrum of human choices. None of us have to find other people’s preferences to our taste - that’s what ‘preference’ means ! The notion of choices surely suggest that we find one choice preferable to others.
I like Bach and Mahler much more than I like Wagner or Liszt. I like Shiraz more than I like Merlot and I find Moselle vomit-inducing. I like dogs more than cats, but purely on a platomic level, although I have met some very attractive dogs.
All of us, very likely, find some preferences, those extremely different to our own, distasteful, unpleasant, even revolting - but this does not have to mean that we consider their exponents to be thus: what other people do is their business, what their preferences might be is their business - but if someone asks, do we dissemble ? pretend ? search through our little books for what is most PC ?
But let’s not let this stop debate and discussion: let’s not simply slag anyone who criticises pornography, in this case, as a ‘pornophobe’ and stop debate in its tracks with this dirty tactic. Perhaps NM can rule that this is another tactic which should not be allowed ?
Joe
Hello! Just wanted to add that I was also struck by the link this article made between anal sex and "painful and humiliating sex acts". I do think that suggesting anal sex belongs in the latter category is a form of homophobia, and offensive to gay men.
I was sorry to see that link being made here, in what is otherwise a good article, although I’m still not sure what I think about porn!
Thanks all. I guess I’d appreciate it if New Matilda were careful about comments that could have homophobic implications.
I would like to make a public confession. I am a paedophilophobe, an incestophobe, a capitalistophobe, a theophobe, a facistophobe, a nationalismophobe, a warophobe, a billionaireophobe, a murdererophobe, a violenceophobe, a pornophobe, a drugophobe and further, I proudly proclaim that I prefer sex as nature intended it and I don’t care who knows it.
As a public service, I ban myself from New Matilda!
www.dangerouscreation.com
Hi David,
You have many friends and supporters amongst NM participants, I’m sure. There is nothing that you write above that I disagree with. Please come back !
Joe
Oh dear. Are we really back that "as nature intended" argument? It’s a bit old that one, not to mention invalid.
If it can be done, and people from every culture and every country in the world do it every day, as they have throughout history, how "unnatural" can two consenting adults having sex be? Who cares if they are gay or straight or defy categorisation?
Not sure if you’ve seen any of those documentaries on all the different kinds of sex animals have, David, but there’s a whole lot of gay sex going on there. Last I checked the animal kingdom was regarded as "natural".
Although in answer to that you may say, gosh, aren’t we highly evolved humans above all that? I’d say key markers of an evolved society are tolerance, awareness and diversity.
How on earth did a discussion about erotica and pornography morph into a dispute about anal sex and from there somehow into a phony discussion for and/of against homosexuality ? Beats me. All I was saying was - and this exactly supports your last sentence, Ali, about tolerance - is that I support the full human rights of gays but, quite incidentally, I don’t find anal sex interesting or attractive or alluring. That’s pluralism, tolerance, you do your thing, I’ll do mine, we don’t have to love everything other people do. We can all exist in the same world, doing things differently. Yes, exactly, a highly civilized society is one which allows for tolerance, awareness, diversity, and mutual respect.
As far as I know, Catholics cross themselves from left to right, and Orthodox Christians cross themselves from right to left. As an atheist, I don’t give a shit either way, but I’m sure that Catholics and Orthodox are quite passionate about their particular way of reaching God, and find the other way distasteful, wrong, even evil. Nowadays each ofthem would allow for co-existence with the other. I have a similar attitude to anal sex, cross yourself any way you like, as it were, but I don’t have to be interested or fascinated or particularly gung-ho about it.
Maybe I missed something, but did anybody mention anything about what ‘nature intended’ ? So what ? The female of some species of praying mantises eat their mates while they are having sex, but I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it, not even for Germaine Greer (although it’s probably too late to warn her against it). Some marsupials root until they drop dead, but I wouldn’t recommend that either (although Mick Jagger and Wayne Carey must have come close). Most mammals come on heat only once a year and not other times, or perhaps I’m wrong. I wouldn’t support a similar regime for humans. To hell with nature. Oops, now I’ve upset the ALFs.
Anyway, to get back to the topic, by way of a declaration that I support homosexuality as much as I support heterosexuality - completely equal rights, i.e. including the right to have sex any way they like but not to impose it on others - that no, I do not find anal sex to my taste. So sue me.
Joe
Hey, Joe, thanks for your kind words above. I’ve been reading your comments about ‘that issue’, you know, the one we’re not to discuss (unless it’s to offer unqualified support).
Ali’s comment directed at me would be an interesting one to respond to but I have to keep in mind that I can’t discuss specific details of his sweeping, largely incorrect allegations because that would be considered to be homophobic. Anyway, anal sex is of no interest to me though it does appear to be a major preoccupation of some.
The irony is that, during the Mardi Gras, the gay community leave few issues in the mainstream community untouched. Nothing is sacred, nothing is immune. Yet should someone offer any criticism of them or their lifestyle then all hell breaks loose!
I guess I’m learning what the silent majority really means. Cheers.
Thanks, David, it’s great to know that you haven’t been discouraged from supporting diversity of opinion of all sorts, including your own. Surely NM is on side with the notion that supporting diversity - while it implies respect and tolerance for other people and their tastes, views and preferences (and the right of everybody to have their own) - co-exists with discussion, and does not have to mean that (actually by definition) we support and agree with what, and do as, others do.
Some of our respected NM colleagues are vegetarians, who find eating meat distateful. Instead of getting indignant (how dare they not like meat ???????), most meat-eaters would shrug and say, that’s up to you, stick with your sprouts. Some of us can’t stand gardening, but we shouldn’t be forced to make out that we like gardening.
So with anal sex (although that is somewhat of a stretch) - go for it, if you like, but don’t expect everybody to like it. Please try to be tolerant of those who find it distasteful. Please try to come to terms with the diversity of opinions about anal sex. Do it if you like, but don’t expect others to do so - that would be called forced conformity, the crushing of tolerance and contempt for diversity.
Joe
hey david,
you seem like a nice enough guy and i’d like to think your opinions come from some form of ignorance rather than malice, so i’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here in explaining this to you
i’ll think you’ll find the reason you have been reacted to so strongly is this: you have suggested that homosexuality is in the same bag as incest, murder, violence, paedophilia.. etc. this is an age old argument and i find it hard to believe someone could get to your age and not have heard it. BUT, i am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and explain it to you, without irony.
there is no "slippery slope" between homosexulity and paedophilia (or any of these things you mention). to suggest so is highly offensive to a lot of people and especially homosexuals. when marni said "personal choice" she probably should have said personal, adult, consenting choice. for that is the difference between the things you mention and being gay. homosexual sex is a consenting act between two (or more!) adults. it does not infringe on anyone’s human rights. a liberal society accepts homosexulity becasue it is a personal adult consenting choice. and likewise, i would say that new matilda accepts, and respects, these choices becasue they are personal adult and consenting - and does not allow comment that denigrates other people’s personal, adult, consenting choices.
the other things you mention do infringe on someone’s rights. and therefore a liberal society frowns on them. and likewise, i would say that new matilda would encourage criticism of them.
anyway, i hope this helps
peace out
jasmine
Jasmine, thanks for suggesting that my viewpoint comes from some form of ignorance rather than malice. That’s certainly comforting given my age!
You may be able to straighten me out on one thing though. All my misguided and uninformed life I’ve believed that the dictionary definition of an anus is fairly clearcut as is what I thought was its purpose. The five dictionaries that I have just consulted still confirm it.
However, now I find out from Ali and others that it’s really a sex organ, one that is regularly used as such by some humans (of both sexes) as well as many warm-blooded, four-legged creatures. Its primary purpose as I understood it, perhaps via evolution or an act of God, has apparently now become a secondary one without me being aware of it!
When did this remarkable change occur? I didn’t read it in the SMH! When I did psychology at Uni. it wasn’t mentioned, no, not once.
Jasmine, heads are going to roll, I can tell you! Cheers.
www.dangerouscreation.com
yeah.. ok. guess you’re on your own then buddy
Hi Jasmine,
With respect, it seems to be that others than David are making connections (so to speak) between pornophobia and homophobia. To disapprove of one is not the same as having contempt for the other. If the connection (Jesus, how do you get away from double entendres ?) between the two is focus on the anus (wow, that’s more Latin than I have used for years!) then it is really in the minds of others to connect distaste with one with disapproval of the other.
I’m sure that David has not meant to suggest anything other than that homosexuality is one thing ,anal sex is another, and pederasty is yet another. The three are not necessarily connected, and I support him on this attempt to separate the three. I’m sure that homosexuals may practise sex in ways whic hdo not invovle anal sex, and good for them. If some do practise anal sex, well good for them as well, but that’s their business.
Personally, I support wholeheattedly your assertion that ‘homosexual sex is a consenting act between two (or more!) adults. it does not infringe on anyone’s human rights. a liberal society accepts homosexuality becasue it is a personal adult consenting choice.’ Go for it. It shouldn’t be illegal. But don’t expect everybody to find it smelling like roses, so to speak. Heterosexual society is another world, they do things differently there. And why not ? What is wrong with face-to-face sex, sex between people on an equal footing, one on top, sometimes the other on top ? Does that disgust you ? Fine, that’s your right. To each his own. It certainly blows my mind.
Meanwhile, China is about to round up and butcher thousands of Tibetans. Al Qaida is about to blow up hundreds of Iraqis. Israel is about to launch rocket attacks on Palestinian children. South Americans at last have the hope of a better life without American exploitation. The US economy itself (and the American people, especially the poor) are about to take it well and truly up the arse. Get real, and get over your pissy middle-class angst about arseholes. Most of us out here don’t really give a shit, but if it turns you on….
Joe
hi joe
have you noticed that it only you and david who keep bringing it back to butts? the rest of us are trying to talk about bigger issues
cheers
jasmine
Bigger butts ? I don’t have any argument there ! JLo is one of my fantasies, clothed or otherwise !
No, Jasmine, somebody else (I forget who now) brought up the issue of pornography morphing into anal sex morphing into homophobia. Then it all went pear-shaped (how DO you avoid double entendres ? This topic is driving me crazy!) And from there into compulsory support for all things gay.
But diversity necessitates difference in some way or other, and while I support the human rights of all gays, to marry, to inherit, to adopt, to flaunt their body parts at society in general, and to enjoy each others’ company as they please, by definition I do not agree with (yet I support their right to) all of their practices. How many times do we have to say it ? Some people love fishing, others find it abhorrent, yet would not forbid fishing. Some people get a buzz out of Rugby (even some of us here in SA, although we don’t brag about it) but those who don’t are not necessarily vile spawns of Satan. That’s how life is, that’s what it means to be pluralist, to support diversity, difference, the Other, alterity, whatever the f*** you might want to call it. Live and let live, and keep out of each others’ bedrooms. End.
Some people are teetotal, which is their right, but clearly others may not agree with them (this writer included). Ultimately, this is what democracy means. Do what you like, as long as it does not infringe on others’ right to do what they like also, and vice versa. Isaiah Berlin’s Negative Liberty. If you want to take it up the arse, that’s your democratic right, but some of us don’t. That’s our democratic right. And I’m sure that NM would wholeheartedly support that position (so to speak).
Joe
I’d check those figures that are so regularly trotted out when we want to demonstrate how the "porn industry" is taking over the world.
http://www.forbes.com/2001/05/25/0524porn_print.html
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/corliss/article/0,9565,1058996,00.htm…
Mark noted above, very perceptively:
‘The issue has always been where you draw the line, not whether you have any censorship at all.’
Precisely: Surely we all would drawn a line somewhere along the line from acceptable visual stimulation to sexual degradation and horror, no matter how conservative or liberal ? i.e. the most conservative would still allow perhaps the odd ankle, facial feature, bare hands ? And surely the most liberal would have their limit, beyond which they would be revolted - I should not have to go into details, but a combination of children, animals, pain, obvious suffering, violence, blood and/ or other body fluids ?
So, where’s your line between acceptable and unacceptable ?
Actually, wouldn’t there be a much longer line, a spectrum of visual entertainment along which we would place enjoyable but innocuous and devoid of sexual suggestion (such as The Wizard of Oz), to enjoyable but slightly naughty but not enough to send the kids to bed, to pretty saucy, to erotica, to soft porn, to hard porn, to sheer degrading crap. Does that make sense ? I know it’s a complex world, where either/or divisions are difficult to make, but as Mark suggests, where do you draw your particular, inevitable line ?
Joe
Joe - that’s how TV works, that’s how the film and literature classification system works (or doesn’t) in this country. That’s where you have people choosing for you, drawing their line and telling you it’s yours or drawing a line and convincing you that it is the line of the majority so therefore it should be yours. Trying to apply those systems to the internet is just madness. The only "line" you can draw is around what you choose personally and what you allow your children to choose - beyond that, you have little control.
Contrary to you I don’t think that Mark’s example of child porn is particularly useful - sex with a minor is a criminal activity - period, whether I am revolted or not is irrelevant.
But Ellinoz, you and I have our ‘lines’ beyond which we do not get enjoyment and/or we think the material is objectionable. We all surely have such lines that we don’t like to cross, and beyond which, if we had our way, we would not like any system, video, TV or internet, to permit. For example, violent treatment, or sexual abuse, of children, involving prolonged pain, degradation or simulated (or real) death: would you permit that ? That was all I was trying to establish in my clumsy way.
Joe
Again, with respect, you are using an example of a criminal activity. Whether it crosses my line or yours is irrelevant - it remains a criminal act.
My lines and yours may be vastly different - whose line should we choose? Why should my disagreement with your "line" interfere with your access and enjoyment? Isn’t it enough that I just don’t travel on your line or seek out your line that I so object to? What about if I actively take steps to shield myself from your line? I can have a negative opinion of your line but if something crosses mine, it doesn’t necessarily mean I believe the rest of the world should be denied access. To be extra clear - I am talking about consensual activity between adults.
I guess we could toss for it. Or a government could legislate about where it, in its elected wisdom, believes such lines should be, between categories of acceptable through to unacceptable material.
Where exactly lines might be, up at the ‘legal’, ‘acceptable’, end of the spectrum, are a matter of taste, preference, opinion: of course, we may not agree, you and I - I’m sure that even David and I would not agree exactly, and neither of us would agree with Jasmine or Mark. But I hope that we still would defend each other’s right to his or her own preferences. Which would differ. That’s diversity. That’s democracy. That’s pluralism. That’s life.
Your definition: consensual activity betwen adults, is precisely that, drawing a line: ‘consensual’, i.e. not forced, unwilling, with obvious inequality in power between parties, no violence, or with one party active and the other required to be passive. But it’s a bit safe, a bit innocuous, a bit ho-hum, don’t you think ?
Joe