Grey Porn (Re: Re: Re: Commission on Pornography -- reply to GWSmith
Rex Ballard
>In article <3...@cci632.UUCP> r...@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes:
>>
>>Although I oppose regulation of the distribution, I do agree with the
>>premise that those who film crimes should be accountable for those crimes.
>>
>>If someone filmed the beheading of a hostage, I would hope that the
>>people who committed the crime would be convicted, including the
>>film itself as evidence. This by the way, has happened in cases of
>>criminally negligent acts involving stunt men.
>
>I don't mean to pick nits but there is a flaw in the way this is worded.
>
>There is a very famous picture of Lee Harvey Oswald being shot to death.
>"Murder is serious crime, Max." Is the man who took this picture guilty
>of a crime? Should the picture be banned? Should anyone looking at the
>picture be locked away to protect society? <It doesn't take any research
>to see that anyone who acts in the manner portraed in this picture would
>cause great harm to society>
>
>The picture is not the crime. The photographer is not the criminal. (unless
>they were involved in the crime) The criminals should be punished, not the
>photgrapher, not the witnesses, and not the people who watched it on the
>11 o'clock news! The same is true for pornography. If no crime is commited
>in the production of a film, then why should we stop people from seeing it?
>
Well, we have three issues here. I originally meant when someone "stages"
a crime for the purpose of filming it, not a newsman lucky enough to film
a crime. There is a side issue of how to draw the line.
Second, use of the film in criminal prosecutions. It should be easy to
prove that a sex-crime such as rape was committed. The testimony of the
victim, combined with full-color videos, should be enough to get a sentence.
In the case of "snuff movies", the issue of "is it real or is it staged"
could actually be the burdon of the producer.
Third, the continued distribution and marketing of the film. Proceeds
to the victim, anyone who felt they were underpaid could file a complaint.
Proceeds to the perpetrator? He sits in jail while he collects the profits?
In addition, the question of filmed crimes for the purpose of entertainment
in spite of the source. There are reporters who listen to police calls
in hopes of getting a good picture of grizzley, maimed bodies of murder
victims, and publishers who print them.
There are video tape prints, 8mm prints, and photographs of the Kennedy
assasination which are considered pornographic. They show his brains
scattering in 3 different directions. Censorhip? Pornography? or
News?
m.terribile
> >In the 1957 case of *Roth v. United States*, the Supreme Court declared that
> >there *were* materials which, by nature of a combination of obscenity and
> >lack of ``ideas'', the dissemination of which are protected by the First
> >Amendment, could (but did not have to be) subject to restriction by the
> >States.
>
> Under this law, a great deal of useful information was combined with
> the "porn".
Curious; my understanding was that when a case made it to the Supreme Court,
under *Roth* it as almost inevitably thrown out. Under previous laws, a lot
of abuses took place; *Roth* ended most of them, and was a first cut at
definin a standard that would be fair in the face of about 60 years of
unfairness.
> >The 1973 case of *Miller v. California* tightened this up just a little:
>
> Actually the "Miller" case removed the "redeeming social value" aspect
> and furthermore polarized the porn market.
The *Miller* case requires that the work be viewed as a whole. If there is
serious literary, etc, value, even to the extent of generating controversy
among ``experts'' in the field, it seems unlikely that a work could be
considered to be without merit.
> >We must evaluate the possibility that in practice, materials other than
> >these will be restricted, and that the effect therefore will be the
> >restriction of materials that are substantially closer to the the First
> >Amendment ought to protect than the items in fact aimed at by the
> >*Miller* definition of obscenity.
>
> Worse, the possibility that because of restrictions, such as the current
> "rating system" for films, the "milder" forms of "porn" might go the way
> of films, either "all sex" or "nothing". The guidelines in the film industry
> have lead to complete absence of plot in "XXX" rated movies, and complete
> absence of nearly all sex in "R" rated movies. "R" rated movies have been
> dominated by progressively more "anatomically accurate" violence. There
> is little "grey area" where sex (even simulated) or sexually arousing material
> may be presented in the context of a well developed plot.
The government has no hand at all in the MPAA rating system. It's true that
today's movies are audience targeted, as are many of today's books. The stuff
that qualifies as real literature usually isn't. (I don't consider 3/4 of
today's novels to qualify, but then I also believe in Sturgeon's Law.)
... It is now necessary to warn the writer that his concern for
the reader must be pure: he must sympathize with the reader's
plight ... but never seek to know his wants. The whole duty of
a writer is to please and satisfy himself, and the true writer
always plays to an audience of one. Let him start sniffing the
air or glancing at the Trend Machine, and he is as good as dead,
although he may make a nice living.
E.B.White, in the
conclusion to Strunk and
White, *The Elements of Style*
The curious problem that better informing people about ``literature'' (here
include films, sound recordings, etc) allows them to better exercise their
prejudices, and reduces the types of material available is hardly caused by
government regulation, although you may reasonably argue that we don't need to
add even one more possible source ...
Did *I Claudius* appeal to a prurient interest in sex? Doubtful. On the
other hand, I would have felt many of the explicit depictions in poor taste
were it not for the overall quality of the work. There are many people who
would not even consider the latter. And in no way could *I Claudius*, taken
as a whole, be considered legally obscene. (In fact, even *Caligula*, when
it came before the Supreme Court, was declared to have serious value and
therefore protected from obscenity statutes.) But the fact that many or
most people would not choose to view *I Claudius* because it either had too
much explicit sex or not enough reflects on commercial tastes and not on
either censorship questions or literary worth.
> There is probably a concern that, because of legislation, restrictions, or
> regulation, much of the "middle ground" will dissappear. Cheesecake such
> as "Vargas Girls", "Strip-Tease", and lingerie have virtually dissappeared
> and been replaced by "raw sex", "full nudity", and "kink".
Believe it or not, I agree that this is unfortunate; I don't think that the
older stuff is much likely to be harmful to anyone, even most adolsecents,
and I *do* happen to enjoy some of it. I also admit to enjoying an occasional
nude, but I don't enjoy the cruder stuff. Am I arguing for the legitimacy of
my own preferred vices? It's possible, I suppose.
But the changes happened because of increased willingness of people to print
the cruder stuff, and of people to buy it, coupled with the fact that people
are allowed to distribute the raw stuff where postal censorship (ugh! one
area that ought *not* be subject to regulation except where there is clear
intent to distribute as an *enterprise*) once prohibited it.
If anything, requiring that specific acts or depictions be prohibited, and
making it clear that ``cheesecake'' (and ``beefcake'' as well ...) are not
among those that may be prohibited, seems likely to *increase* the amount of
enticing (rather than explicit) and non-obsessive material available.
> History is full of examples, not of hard censorship, but of the polarizing
> effect of censorship.
True, because the censorship was broad and rarely included the balancing
third requirement of the *Miller* standard, nor the objective second
requirement. I think that by making these a well-understood part of the
law the abuses of personal offensensitivity can be avoided, and evidently
the courst think so, too.
> Unfortunately, local prosecutions served as a method of "harrassment" which
> resulted in the loss of the "moderate" literature which could not be marketed
> in general markets, but could not compete in "adult-only" bookstores.
I agree wholeheartedly that overzealous prosecution of people without the
resources to handle lengthy appeals has been a problem. But the meanings
of the decisions are getting clarified and where once an appeal might have
been lengthy, such an appeal now would often result in the conviction being
thrown out summarily. Where lower courts have respected this, and made it
clear to prosecutors that they will observe the judgement of the higher courts,
there is less margin for abuse.
The margin can never be eliminated in obscenity law, nor in zoning and public
nuisance law (witness one poster on another group who was served with an
order to patch up his house with a coat of paint rather than give it the
lengthy and temporarily unsightly restoration it requires ...). Does this
mean that we should discard all law? Or does it mean that we should attempt
to report abuses through the Press and to elect just and fairminded officials?
> Unfortunately "Miller" implies that most material cannot be banned entirely,
> while the "regulation" and "restriction" laws prevent "moderate" publications
> from competing.
The court has also drastically limited the nature of these laws. Essentially,
there is nothing to prohibit material (not legally obscene) from being sold in
convenience stores if it is displayed in ``blinder racks'' covering the lower
2/3 of the cover, or if a number of other remedies against accidental exposure
to minors is taken, unless zoning laws explicitly limit the area in which
such things may be sold. I suspect that incidental sales of a few publications
that do not make the convenience store into an ``adult materials'' store would
not (and could not) make the convenience store subject to the same restrictions
as an ``adults only'' store.
The Court has also held that zoning regulations and display-limiting provisions
may not be used to limit the rights of people to do business: you cannot limit
distribution to ``selected downtown areas'' and then only select 1 downtown
block in 15 square miles of city! You can limit the area somewhat, though,
just as you can limit where large department stores may be built, and you
can also prevent clustering by requiring a minimum distance between such
establishments.
> > . . . . . We think it unfortunate when *Catcher in
> >the Rye* is unavailable in a high school library, but none of us would
> >criticize the decision to keep *Lady Chatterly's Lover*, plainly protected by
> >the First Amendment, out of junior high schools.
>
> If "Lady Chatterly's Lover" were put in junior high schools, many students
> might take a deeper interest in literature. I read Lord Byron in 7th grade,
> and Catcher in the Rye in 9th. These sparked an interest in romance,
> liturature and the "eros" of reading.
I also read CitR in ... 10th, I think. What the heck. But there is a
world of difference between that and LCL. As to a deeper interest in
reading ... well, I found LCL a boring and unrewarding book a few years
ago, and I had a lot more stamina then than I did in HS. I also think that
there is a big difference between the maturity of most JHS students and most
HS students, no? It's unfortunate that we can't better ``track'' students as
to maturity, but even tracking them academically causes an uproar in many
circles.
Do you think that it would be appropriate for HS libraries to have copies of
Playboy? Hustler? I'm not referring to the case of one issue that some
teacher requested be shelved for a feature it carried, but rather of carrying
them on the same basis that such a library might carry Time or USNews&WR.
> It is difficult enough to make creative decisions without having to be
> concerned about whether the result will be "legally restricted" or not.
> This has no connection with whether it should be "legally prohibited".
>
> Conversely, if a producer WANTS an "R rating", writers may go to extremes
> in adding violence or sexually implicit scenes. If the producer wants
> an X rating, he may not even bother with a script, costumes, scenery, lighting,
> plot, or mood.
Neither the R nor the X ratings carry any force of law whatsoever; they are
private ratings. As far as making creative decisions, see the remark by
E.B.White above. As far as the ``chilling effect'', the limits of the *Miller*
decision upon laws and prosecution *do* need to be publicized, and we do need
to educate people that the notion of legal obscenity is designed to reflect
the minimum decency standards of the people as a whole, and not anyone's idea
of morality, and that those standards can only be justified in the *absence* of
real scientific, literary, political, etc, reasons to the contrary.
There is a difference between decency and morality. If my neighbor wanted to
walk out of her house naked to get the paper in the morning, it would probably
not be very immoral (except insofar as it was a affront upon the tastes of
her neighbors) but is would undoubtedly be indecent if her walk carried her
into clear view of a large part of the street.
> There is a fine line between the vigilante who will not buy a magazine he
> considers obscene and the attempts of a vigilante group to prevent others
> from purchasing that magazine.
The first is not a vigilante. Neither is the second if he uses such legal
methods as legal and peaceful picketting and boycotting. It is only where
the law is ignored or abused that the term ``vigilante'' is appropriate.
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat
(Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a!
mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat)
(mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me)
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
Rex Ballard
>There's a lot here; I will skip a lot of the points made to answer the big ones.
>> >In the 1957 case of *Roth v. United States*,
>> the "porn".
>Curious; my understanding was that when a case made it to the Supreme Court,
>under *Roth* it as almost inevitably thrown out.
Often, was because the materials in question had educational value. Birth
control, impotence, precautions for sex, and other articles were included
for the protection under the "socially redeeming value" clause. Other
material included political viewpoints, news, and information not often
given exposure elsewhere.
>> >The 1973 case of *Miller v. California* tightened this up just a little:
>> Actually the "Miller" case removed the "redeeming social value" aspect
>> and furthermore polarized the porn market.
>The *Miller* case requires that the work be viewed as a whole.
This is true, but the Miller case does not require that a work have
literary merit.
>> Worse, the possibility that because of restrictions, such as the current
>> "rating system" for films, the "milder" forms of "porn" might go the way
>> of films, either "all sex" or "nothing".
>The government has no hand at all in the MPAA rating system.
This is true, but the MPAA rating system is used as a statutory rather
than advisory guideline in most, if not all states. In Colorado, to
view a "X rated" materials, you must be 18. In New York, you must
be 21. You must have proof of age as well.
>The curious problem that better informing people about ``literature'' (here
>include films, sound recordings, etc) allows them to better exercise their
>prejudices, and reduces the types of material available is hardly caused by
>government regulation, although you may reasonably argue that we don't need to
>add even one more possible source ...
It is the option of a store owner to order and sell, whatever material
he wishes. With porn, however, the owner may have to go "all or nothing",
with zoning ordincances, appropriate markings, paint over windows to obscure
view, and other "nuisance law" requirements.
>> There is probably a concern that, because of legislation, restrictions, or
>> regulation, much of the "middle ground" will dissappear. Cheesecake such
>> as "Vargas Girls", "Strip-Tease", and lingerie have virtually dissappeared
>> and been replaced by "raw sex", "full nudity", and "kink".
>
>Believe it or not, I agree that this is unfortunate; I don't think that the
>older stuff is much likely to be harmful to anyone, even most adolsecents,
>and I *do* happen to enjoy some of it. I also admit to enjoying an occasional
>nude, but I don't enjoy the cruder stuff. Am I arguing for the legitimacy of
>my own preferred vices? It's possible, I suppose.
It sounds like we have similar goals. Most fetish, "cheesecake", and
"lingerie" material has gone into the "bondage", S&M, and Transexual
markets. In fact, some materials don't even depict full nudity, just
fetish clothing. The fact that the models are tied up, or holding
whips, paddles, and similar "props" is a way to incorporate two markets
with one publication.
If you were to attempt to perchase "cheesecake" materials based on the
covers however, you could be quite shocked to discover that a $17.00
magazine with cheesecake on the cover contained full nudity, men
torturing women, and/or women torturing men, but no other "cheesecake".
One magazine actually shows what appear to be beautifully dressed women,
and inside is all men dressed as women, with genitalia showing.
>But the changes happened because of increased willingness of people to print
>the cruder stuff, and of people to buy it,
Often, people do not know what they are buying until after they've bought it.
The only current postal restriction I know of is unsolicited mailing of
sexually explicit materials.
>If anything, requiring that specific acts or depictions be prohibited, and
>making it clear that ``cheesecake'' (and ``beefcake'' as well ...) are not
>among those that may be prohibited, seems likely to *increase* the amount of
>enticing (rather than explicit) and non-obsessive material available.
In a sense, I agree. By establishing degrees of "obscenity", and providing
wider distribution channels to less "obscene" materials, the amount of
"softer porn" would increase. Perhaps film rating systems (if statutes
are to use them as guidelines) which encourage a wider range of age
brackets, or advisory, rather than compulsory ages, could aid in a
more "normal" presentation of sex, love, and commitment.
The current MPAA ratings also give very little information about content.
The same rating is given "Nightmere on Elm Street" that is given to "Bachelor
Party". While I might even want 15 year olds to see "Bachelor Party", I
wouldn't want to see "Elm Street" myself.
The advertising for these movies is better than most. At least they reflect
the content of the films. In some cases, such as "Angel", what appears to
be a mildly erotic film is actually an excessively violent film with little
erotic content.
Having worked in the industry myself, and being aware of the legalities
and "nuisance" issues involved, it is interesting to note that ratings
had a very important impact on distribution channels.
>> History is full of examples, not of hard censorship, but of the polarizing
>> effect of censorship.
>
>True, because the censorship was broad and rarely included the balancing
>third requirement of the *Miller* standard, nor the objective second
>requirement. I think that by making these a well-understood part of the
>law the abuses of personal offensensitivity can be avoided, and evidently
>the courst think so, too.
>
>> Unfortunately, local prosecutions served as a method of "harrassment" which
>> resulted in the loss of the "moderate" literature which could not be marketed
>> in general markets, but could not compete in "adult-only" bookstores.
>
>Where lower courts have respected this, and made it
>clear to prosecutors that they will observe the judgement of the higher courts,
>there is less margin for abuse.
The lower courts, however support the "Adult" vs. "Minor" distinctions, with
no sort of intermediate class. In some states, a person under 21 is considered
a "minor".
The irony here is that the most lucrative "soft porn" markets are in the 14-21
age brackets. Look at the types of porn, and their target audiences. These
target audiences are the age groups most interested in this type of material,
rather than a factor of advertizing targets. Most sexually descriptive
materials are targeted slightly above their target audience.
"Unporn". I almost forgot about this category. This is material where
women or men are shown, not nude, but in situations that could be arousing
to a young people just becoming aware of sexuality. Pantyhose wrappers,
clothing catalogues, bathing suits, underwear, shoe ads, almost any material
showing reasonably attractive people in poses or with facial expressions
that are attractive. Even Barbie Dolls, cartoons, or Comic books. Children
as young as age 5, to as old as age 12, may find even this material sexually
arousing. In fact, this material is most likely to influence sexual
preferences in the future. My son has had a thing for women's shoes
since he was two years old. He couldn't talk before then.
"Marshmellow porn" (my term for things like "Teen Beat", "True Romances",
and personalities like Madonna, Prince, and Boy George", is a very large
market in the 13-15 bracket. This is typically things like sexually suggestive
"street suitable" attire, bikinis, leg and occaisional breast. Some sexually
suggestive situations. This could be expanded to include lingerie, cheesecake,
and "strip tease". In films, the amount of this content is less than 1% of
the movie. This 1% could be expanded to as much as 10% or more. The same
is true of printed material.
Soft porn, such as Playboy, Playgirl, Cosmopolitan, and New Look, is more
popular with the 15-17 group. Here, more nudity, lingerie, and fetish
material is mixed in with the "fluff". Characters actually have sex,
but seduction, birth control, and emotional factors are not well emphasised.
In the bulk of the material couples are not often shown, or are shown
in "intimate" but not "explicit" sexual situations. Some areas restrict
sales of this material through "nuisance laws", designed to make informed
purchases impossible or inconvenient.
Mild porn, such as Hustler, Leg Show, Variations, and Pillow Talk begin
to discuss "kinks" like oral sex, fetishes, fantasies, gentle bondage,
group sex, and occaisionally anal sex. This is most popular (when available)
among the college group, 18-21 years. Birth control and "safe sex" are
seldom, if ever discussed. It is assumed that the reader understands
these things. Stores which carry this type of material seldom advertize
it. Most "general merchandise" stores don't even run the risk.
General porn, films especially, contain episode after episode of oral
and vaginal sex, fully naked partners, and usually one or two minutes
of something unusual, either anal sex, fashion, or gentle bondage.
"Sensations", for example, has a woman tied up with ribbon (several of
which break during the scene).
Adult soft porn, such as Spikes, Vibrations, and others focus on fetishes
directly. Women are often shown with props such as paddles, riding
crops, and/or whips of various types. Corsetry, high heels, stockings,
garter belts, leather, and other "exotic fashions" are also featured,
usually in combination with either dominant or submissive female
themes. Restraints, are usually silk ties, stockings, or soft rope in soft
porn, Text and/or dialogue includes "rules of the game" for those who
wish to experiment with bondage. This is popular in the 25-30 bracket.
There is also the "young girl" market, featuring shaved pubic
regions, pony tails or pig tails, bobby socks, saddle shoes, and other
"young look" fashions. This, strangely enough, is popular in the 30-50
market. This group often includes "spanking" themes as well.
Hard Core, such as "Reflections", features detailed descriptions and
pictorials of painful acts for sexual pleasure. Costumes include
rubber and leather. Restraints are usually leather or metal cuffs,
attached to chains. Settings are often dungeons. Models range in age up
to 60 years old. "Mistress Antoinette", publisher and model of several
such publications is over 60 years old. This is popular in the 30-70
age bracket.
Films in the "hard core bondage" market are often simply films a dominatrix
takes of her clients, often filmed by another dominatrix. In many cases,
the victim is set free of all restraints, put in different restraints,
and so on. Often the victims are males with enough strength to break chains
(some victims do), put into one helpless situation after another.
Finally, we have the "ultra-porn". This material includes actual rape,
torture, and even death (actual or simulated) of boundage victims. In
many cases, the model is told the film will include some "gentle bondage",
and is then bound in hard gear. The bondage often causes pain which
is in no way sexual or desired. Little fashion is shown, because the
victim would not hold still for it. Beatings involving even 2x4's are
included. Rope burns, blood, and expressions of sheer terror on the
victims face are common. Seldom is the victim shown "free" after the
ordeal. Although it is available, it is extremely uncommon to find
material of this sort, even in adult bookstores. One of the best known,
"Bondage Classics", was made over 20 years ago. The proceeds from
this film do go to the victims.
I have never seen pedophile material, nor do I wish to. It is not
even available in Adult stores. Appearantly, there is an underground
black market. I couldn't tell you anything about it. I simply don't
know anything.
Transvestite and transexual themes are usually only available at "Adult"
stores. They range from very soft, to very hard. The same is true with
Gay and Lesbian materials. Loosening of restrictions may be appropriate.
One, F.M.I., depicts female impersonators without showing genitalia. In
some cases, where both male and female models are shown, it is hard to
tell which is which. The fashions look more like something out of Vogue
magazine.
Women and couples in adult bookstores tend to prefer the various
bondage/dominance themes. With women slightly ahead of men in terms
of age groups making the transition from soft adult porn to hard porn.
Women who patronize adult bookstores often spend as much time looking at
the restraints as they do looking at the magazines.
It is important to note that Adult store patrons represent a small segment
of the population. It would not be safe to say *most* women are into
bondage :-).
Adult bookstores do little to inform customers as to which material is
moderate and which is "hard core". The covers provide little informaton,
and the contents are sealed in plastic wrappers. Most of my exposure
to "hard core", and "ultra-hard core" has been because of this. Unfortunately,
most Adult stores have a "no refund" policy. They also have a "no browsing"
policy.
>Does this mean that we should discard all law?
No. It means we should have sensible guidelines which match appropriate
material to appropriate ages. Notice that the 15-21 market is often
only available to people over 21, depending on the state.
It means that Adult stores should not have "no refund, no browsing" policies,
or the less offensive material should be marketable in areas where shoplifting
is less common. I know of a few stores in Colorado, located in the suburbs,
where browsing is allowed (for a nominal admission fee of 25 cents). There
was much less "hard-core" and almost no "ultra-hard-core" material.
>Or does it mean that we should attempt
>to report abuses through the Press and to elect just and fairminded officials?
In the cases of ultra-hard core, you could even encourage laws that would
allow the victim to come forward, using the film as supporting evidence,
and allow subpoena of all roughs, rejects, and cutting room extracts.
You could even encourage prosecutors to find the models of such films
to determine if they were in fact non-consenting adults.
>> Unfortunately "Miller" implies that most material cannot be banned entirely,
>> while the "regulation" and "restriction" laws prevent "moderate" publications
>> from competing.
>
>The court has also drastically limited the nature of these laws. Essentially,
>there is nothing to prohibit material (not legally obscene) from being sold in
>convenience stores if it is displayed in ``blinder racks'' covering the lower
>2/3 of the cover, or if a number of other remedies against accidental exposure
>to minors is taken, unless zoning laws explicitly limit the area in which
>such things may be sold.
Would you buy a book, a magazine, a can of food, or a car without knowing
what you were about to buy. There are those who do so. This actually
makes the problem worse. After a few attempts a purchasing material which
does not prove to be worth the money, the frustrated customer is often
tempted to patronize more exotic retailers. Though he/she might find
something that appeals, the combination with other factors such as dominance
or whatever, may either offend, or arouse, causing even more complex fantisies
to evolve.
>I suspect that incidental sales of a few publications
>that do not make the convenience store into an ``adult materials'' store would
>not (and could not) make the convenience store subject to the same restrictions
>as an ``adults only'' store.
Much of this is political. A friend of a friend on city council might be able
to sell adult soft porn, while a franchise owner might not be able to sell
even very soft porn.
>The Court has also held that zoning regulations and display-limiting provisions
>may not be used to limit the rights of people to do business: you cannot limit
>distribution to ``selected downtown areas'' and then only select 1 downtown
>block in 15 square miles of city! You can limit the area somewhat, though,
>just as you can limit where large department stores may be built, and you
>can also prevent clustering by requiring a minimum distance between such
>establishments.
However suburbs are not required to allow such places if there are stores
downtown. In moderate sized cities, trade may be restricted to the core
city.
>I also read CitR in ... 10th, I think. What the heck. But there is a
>world of difference between that and LCL. As to a deeper interest in
>reading ... well, I found LCL a boring and unrewarding book...
I found "Fanny Hill" a little boring too, at age 23, but at age 15, it
would have been delightful reading. A person's intersts get more
sophisticated with age.
Conversely, I found "Spikes" to be revolting at 20, but exciting at
28. When the novelty of sex wore off with marriage, diversions added
just the right "spice", for both of us.
>Do you think that it would be appropriate for HS libraries to have copies of
>Playboy? Hustler?
Some remedial reading programs do use these materials on a regular basis.
They also use Cosmopolitan, Playgirl, and True Romance to motivate young
women. Pretty pictures are less than 1% of the magazines, sugar coating
to make the medicine easier to swallow. :-).
>Neither the R nor the X ratings carry any force of law whatsoever; they are
>private ratings.
Sorry, many local and state governments do provide criminal penalties for
admitting people under 16 or 17 to "R" rated movies, and admitting people
under 18 or 21 to "XXX" rated movies.
>As far as making creative decisions, see the remark by
>E.B.White above.
I deleted it, but read it. There is a big difference between the author,
the publisher or producer, and the distributor. An author should write
for himself. But the producer/publisher has to worry about investors,
earnings reports, and profits. The distributor has to worry about "dead
inventory". Even in adult bookstores, there are lots of "bargain packs",
mostly containing material not "hot" enough for regular sales.
>As far as the ``chilling effect'', the limits of the *Miller*
>decision upon laws and prosecution *do* need to be publicized, and we do need
>to educate people that the notion of legal obscenity is designed to reflect
>the minimum decency standards of the people as a whole, and not anyone's idea
>of morality, and that those standards can only be justified in the *absence* of
>real scientific, literary, political, etc, reasons to the contrary.
The notion of legal obscenity has to be expanded. Currently selling legal
obscenity to minors is illegal in some states and localities. When "sale to
minors" means selling Variations to 5 year old kids, I agree. When it means
a person is old enough to have sex, but not old enough to read about it,
that's wrong. In Colorado, the age of consent is 15, but to watch Porkys
you must be 17, and to buy even Playboy, you must be 18.
>> There is a fine line between the vigilante who will not buy a magazine he
>> considers obscene and the attempts of a vigilante group to prevent others
>> from purchasing that magazine.
>
>The first is not a vigilante. Neither is the second if he uses such legal
>methods as legal and peaceful picketting and boycotting.
> from Mole End Mark Terribile
Legally, this is true. When intimidation tactics are used, as was the case
with 7-11, it is hard to call it ethical behavior.
There have been several forms of "Legal Harassment" of both stores and
patrons by organized groups. The group that took down liscence plates
and sent notes to the owner's home, employer, and minister. The group
that took the names of patrons and posted them on the bulletin boards
of several churches, for purposes of boycott, harassment, sale refusal,
employement descrimination, etc..
Currently, respect for sexual preferences, be they "strict morality", or
"very kinky", is not a principle of our society. Most people believe
that the bedroom is a private place, but do not believe that books, film,
or even preferrences expressed outside the bedroom are equally sacred.
Perhaps, in the "ideal society", the "kinks" could express their preferences
as openly as the "moralists" express theirs. It might even lead to stronger
marriages if "submissives" could meet "dominants", and people could let
word of mouth attract others whose interests and preferences are complimentary
with their own. There is nothing wrong with having a strict moral code,
but if repression of expression of contrary preferences allows a person
with a strict moral code to marry a person with a "kinky" preferences,
problems are quite likely to develop.
Look at the way the "Gay movement" has enabled gays to meet other gays.
Very seldom are heterosexuals approached, because they know who is
homosexual.
If a man enjoys "fashion" (women who dress in erotic lingerie), it tells
a girl who is interested in him what "bait" to use. If a woman likes
submissive men, the submissive ones will be literally begging for a date :-),
while the dominants will walk off to look for submissive women.
These are certainly not the only factors in a relationship, be it a "one
night stand", or marriage. They are important factors that should be
--discussed-- before making long term commitments, rather than --discovered--
weeks or even years after the honeymoon.
Pornography may or may not "cause" other sexual crimes. If, however, if it
enables one to express verbally, in a non-threatening situation, his own
preferences, before acting on them with an unwilling partner, it may be a
good thing that porn is available.
I am not advocating that everyone should go down to the porno shop to
discover their kink. Just that those who have kinks (not everybody does),
not "surprise" their partners. Decieving a partner about these preferences
in the vain hope that they can be "turned around", is the most obscene
form of deception.
Rex B.
Phil Stephens
does not understand
r...@ccird1.UUCP
Please suggest a workable path from oliveb (or mail, and I'll look at header).
Thank you for a very comprehensive, much more light than heat, article!
Well-worth the length of it.
A minor point: $17 dollars? Seems a little high. If one is into such things,
I would suggest looking for a mail order source. Some are more specialized
than others, and several exist that I know of. One even has half-price sales!
Thanks again for a very knowlegeable posting. I have noticed you are one
of the most frequently worthwhile to read.
I especially like your catagories, from marshmello to ultra. Very expressive.
A minor addition I might make...
>It is important to note that Adult store patrons represent a small segment
>of the population. It would not be safe to say *most* women are into
>bondage :-).
More like 1 in seven, according to a survey quoted in some half-remembered
article in some men's magazine. I have no idea if this is accurate. And
it wasn't "into", it was more like 14% of women "sometimes fantasize", and
a significantly smaller number would actually want to try it (for their own
pleasure). Could actually be higher now, with changing awareness; that
survey was at least 5 years ago. (The point is, one might naively imagine
a vanishingly small percentage of women, but it's actually not that small
an "interest group". Survey said more men interested in trying it than
women, but I've forgotten the figure. Oh, and I assume they lumped together
both polarities of who ties and who gets tied).
You made lots of other good points, too many to bother you with complementing
each seperately. I just want to emphasize liking this one:
>These are certainly not the only factors in a relationship, be it a "one
>night stand", or marriage. They are important factors that should be
>--discussed-- before making long term commitments, rather than --discovered--
>weeks or even years after the honeymoon.
This (and the following two paragraphs with it) is very well said. The very
existance of this entertainment is valuable to such communication, without
requiring any "literary" merit.
>Rex B.
- Phil p...@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens)
or: p...@oliveb.UUCP
m.terribile
> >> Under this law, a great deal of useful information was combined with
> >> the "porn".
> >Curious; my understanding was that when a case made it to the Supreme Court,
> >under *Roth* it as almost inevitably thrown out.
>
> Often, was because the materials in question had educational value. Birth
> control, impotence, precautions for sex, and other articles were included
> for the protection under the "socially redeeming value" clause. Other
> material included political viewpoints, news, and information not often
> given exposure elsewhere.
This was indeed the ``offensensitive'' abuse that *Roth* was meant to correct.
As a practical matter, however, a great deal of other material, justified by
a cheap moral or a dubious claim of educational value, was protected under the
*Roth* decision.
> >> >The 1973 case of *Miller v. California* tightened this up just a little:
> >> Actually the "Miller" case removed the "redeeming social value" aspect
> >> and furthermore polarized the porn market.
> >The *Miller* case requires that the work be viewed as a whole.
>
> This is true, but the Miller case does not require that a work have
> literary merit.
*Miller vs. State of California* states that the material in question
is legally obscene if *all* three of these criteria are met:
1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards,
would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the
prurient interest [in sex -- the American Heritage Dictionary
has three definitions of ``prurient'', all of which involved
an *obsessive* interest in sex, not just a normal one]
2. The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way,
sexual conduct speifically defined by the applicable State or
Federal law.
3. The word, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value.
It is true that the decision speaks of ``value'' rather than ``merit'' -- it
would be possible, I suppose, for a work without literary merit to have
literary value, though I've got only the vaguest notion of how.
> >> There is probably a concern that, because of legislation, restrictions, or
> >> regulation, much of the "middle ground" will dissappear. Cheesecake such
> >> as "Vargas Girls", "Strip-Tease", and lingerie have virtually dissappeared
> >> and been replaced by "raw sex", "full nudity", and "kink".
> > ...
> ...
> If you were to attempt to purchase "cheesecake" materials based on the
> covers however, you could be quite shocked to discover that a $17.00
> magazine with cheesecake on the cover contained full nudity, men
> torturing women, and/or women torturing men, but no other "cheesecake".
>
> One magazine actually shows what appear to be beautifully dressed women,
> and inside is all men dressed as women, with genitalia showing.
A question: is there an ``open code'' language that regular purchasers of this
material understand?
Fact is, if your goal is simple nudes or women (or men) in skimpy clothing,
you can busy *some* of that mail-order from Barnes and Noble! The heavy-duty
outlets (analagous perhaps to places licensed to sell hard liquor) may not
be where you want to go.
> ...
> The only current postal restriction I know of is unsolicited mailing of
> sexually explicit materials.
Currently, yes. In fact, abuse of postal regulation may have been the worst
censorship abuse of the first half of this century. An MD who gave factual
answers to handwritten questions about contraception in first class mail could
be thrown in jail -- and many were. I've forgotten the name of the postal
inspector, but I don't have very kind thoughts toward him. He actually set up
and enticed MDs to do this. Today, of course, there would be an entrapment
defense, and the MD would clearly be protected by various SC decisions,
*Miller* being one of them.
> >If anything, requiring that specific acts or depictions be prohibited, and
> >making it clear that ``cheesecake'' (and ``beefcake'' as well ...) are not
> >among those that may be prohibited, seems likely to *increase* the amount of
> >enticing (rather than explicit) and non-obsessive material available.
>
> In a sense, I agree. By establishing degrees of "obscenity", and providing
> wider distribution channels to less "obscene" materials, the amount of
> "softer porn" would increase. Perhaps film rating systems (if statutes
> are to use them as guidelines) which encourage a wider range of age brackets,
> or advisory, rather than compulsory ages, could aid in a more "normal"
> presentation of sex, love, and commitment.
The problem is that the existing channels (perhaps including the mainstream
``men's magazines'') are wound up with organized crime. Legalizing things
would not get organized crime out of them -- witness the scandals in the
cement and concrete industry in NYC, witness the problems in the waste disposal
industries at every level, witness the frequent claims of La Cosa Nostra
involvement in the entertainment industry ...
Putting more of the industry under public scrutiny would help, of course. If
you don't feel that buying or renting films or tapes out of the trunk of a
car in a driveway somewhere is normal, you'll be more inclined to make
purchases from a store which can be somewhat more readily policed. Even here,
however, law enforcement officers testify that ``adult'' establishments often
keep two sets of books.
> >> ... local prosecutions served as a method of "harrassment" which resulted
> >> in the loss of the "moderate" literature which could not be marketed in
> >>general markets, but could not compete in "adult-only" bookstores.
> >Where lower courts have respected [*Miller*], and made it clear ... that
> >they [uphold] the higher courts, there is less margin for abuse.
> The lower courts, however support the "Adult" vs. "Minor" distinctions, with
> no sort of intermediate class. In some states, a person under 21 is
> considered a "minor".
>
> The irony here is that the most lucrative "soft porn" markets are in the
> 14-21 age brackets. Look at the types of porn, and their target audiences.
> These target audiences are the age groups most interested in this type of
> material, rather than a factor of advertizing targets. Most sexually
> descriptive materials are targeted slightly above their target audience.
Does the fact that materials are attractive to adolescents mean that it should
be sold to them? If some sort of grading system, with a reliable type of
parental approval could be worked out ...
``Y'know Jim, your son Bob came in here last week and asked for a copy
of Playboy.''
``Didja' give it to him?''
``Naw ... I didn't think I oughta' ''
``He's seventeen years old now. I guess if he wants to read that
stuff, he's old enough.''
``Then it's OK?''
``Yeah. Say, how much do I owe you ...''
> "Unporn". I almost forgot about this category. This is material where
> women or men are shown, not nude, but in situations that could be arousing
> to a young people just becoming aware of sexuality. Pantyhose wrappers,
> clothing catalogues, bathing suits, underwear, shoe ads, almost any material
> showing reasonably attractive people in poses or with facial expressions
> that are attractive. Even Barbie Dolls, cartoons, or Comic books. Children
> as young as age 5, to as old as age 12, may find even this material sexually
> arousing. In fact, this material is most likely to influence sexual
> preferences in the future. My son has had a thing for women's shoes
> since he was two years old. He couldn't talk before then.
This actually disturbs me more than the ``airbrushed centerfolds'', since it
carries a powerful sexual message that hits everyone. Adults can get a kick
out of some lingerie ads, too.
> "Marshmellow porn" (my term for things like "Teen Beat", "True Romances",
> and personalities like Madonna, Prince, and Boy George", is a very large
> market in the 13-15 bracket. This is typically things like sexually
> suggestive "street suitable" attire, bikinis, leg and occaisional breast.
> Some sexually suggestive situations. This could be expanded to include
> lingerie, cheesecake, and "strip tease". ...
This I would classify with the first group -- it carries a very strong
sexual message, and it is directed in this case toward people who are not
sexually (and emotionally) mature. It wouldn't concern me if it were not
so all-pervasive. The Madonna and Boy George personalities bother me more
than the movies. In fact, I am more concerned about the pervasive nature
than about the occasional breast or back shot.
But here we are drifing into individual values, and while they may be a
good topic, we *were* talking about effects of violent or degrading materials
and how they might be examined. Let's be sure (as several people have said
to me) that we keep the topics straight.
> Soft porn, such as Playboy, Playgirl, Cosmopolitan, and New Look, is more
> popular with the 15-17 group. Here, more nudity, lingerie, and fetish
> material is mixed in with the "fluff". Characters actually have sex,
> but seduction, birth control, and emotional factors are not well emphasised.
> In the bulk of the material couples are not often shown, or are shown
> in "intimate" but not "explicit" sexual situations. Some areas restrict
> sales of this material through "nuisance laws", designed to make informed
> purchases impossible or inconvenient.
Actually, the ``nuisance'' laws are generally designed to keep this material
away from the 15-17 year olds. Insofar as Playboy, Cosmo, etc, are involved,
there is some information provided by the editorial policies of the
publications. Nothing in most of the statutes prohibits a copy from being
kept behind the counter for examination by an adult who might want to buy
(in the case of ``shrink-wrap'' concealment) or prevents an adult from taking
a copy out of the ``blinder rack'' that covers the ``lower 2/3'' of the
cover.
> ...
> There is also the "young girl" market, featuring shaved pubic
> regions, pony tails or pig tails, bobby socks, saddle shoes, and other
> "young look" fashions. This, strangely enough, is popular in the 30-50
> market. This group often includes "spanking" themes as well.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask if this may be satisfying
(redirecting) a drive that some fathers (or people who wished they were
fathers) feel, and that violates the incest taboo. If so, it suggests
that the normal bonds of affection within a family (real or fantasized)
may not have developed enough to block the sex drive between father and
daughter. I've read that this may be a problem either when the person
hasn't developed these bonds with his child *or* never developed the needed
bonds *with his parents*.
If so, it echoes the conclusion of Commissioner Tilton-Durfee's ``dissenting''
statement:
It occurred to me, over and over again, that the real issue might be
the effects of American family life on the consumtion of pornography,
rather than the reverse.
It also echoes the statement of Commissioner Ritter in which he says that the
Commission ``ran for the hills'' in not examining the ethical and moral
consequences of materials which show sex outside of the context of a loving
marital relationship. (Understand that Bruce Ritter is not unbiased: as a
Fransiscan priest, he has certain moral values. But before writing him off,
examine what he *says*):
``..Finding that sexual privacy is pancultural, that it has been a
stable feature of western civilization for as long as we have
knowledge, and that it currently remains highly valued by Americans
in their attitudes, practices, and laws, doesn not ineluctably
require a finding that the taboo of sexual privacy ought to *continue*
to be held in such high esteem. But these findings ... are
nevertheless crucial in assessing where the *burden* of proof ought
to rest. In all fairness ... it should rest on those seeking to
sweep away the taboo. Does current, photographic ponography offend
that taboo? And if so, what is the harm? ... The answer to the first
question is obvious ... Nothing is left for the viewer to imagine; no
attempt is made to conceal either the face or the genitals of the
performers. The consumer of the ``standard'' pornography in the 1980s,
unlike the consumers of the materials generally available at the time
of the 1970 Commission Report, is a full witness to the most intimate,
the most private activity of another human being.
> Hard Core, such as "Reflections", features detailed descriptions and
> pictorials of painful acts for sexual pleasure. Costumes include
> rubber and leather. Restraints are usually leather or metal cuffs,
> attached to chains. Settings are often dungeons. Models range in age up
> to 60 years old. "Mistress Antoinette", publisher and model of several
> such publications is over 60 years old. This is popular in the 30-70
> age bracket.
>
> Films in the "hard core bondage" market are often simply films a dominatrix
> takes of her clients, often filmed by another dominatrix. In many cases,
> the victim is set free of all restraints, put in different restraints,
> and so on. Often the victims are males with enough strength to break chains
> (some victims do), put into one helpless situation after another.
>
> Finally, we have the "ultra-porn". This material includes actual rape,
> torture, and even death (actual or simulated) of boundage victims. In
> many cases, the model is told the film will include some "gentle bondage",
> and is then bound in hard gear. The bondage often causes pain which
> is in no way sexual or desired. Little fashion is shown, because the
> victim would not hold still for it. Beatings involving even 2x4's are
> included. Rope burns, blood, and expressions of sheer terror on the
> victims face are common. Seldom is the victim shown "free" after the
> ordeal. Although it is available, it is extremely uncommon to find
> material of this sort, even in adult bookstores. One of the best known,
> "Bondage Classics", was made over 20 years ago. The proceeds from
> this film do go to the victims.
The proceeds do when successful prosecutions and civil judgements can be had.
How many ``underground'' films are unprosecuted, with unidentified victims?
I think that most of us would agree that production of this material, and
probably its distribution as well, ought to be prosecuted. We may disagree
on whether it should be done via obscenity statues, assault or rape laws,
or worker protection laws, or some combination of the three.
> I have never seen pedophile material, nor do I wish to. It is not
> even available in Adult stores. Appearantly, there is an underground
> black market. I couldn't tell you anything about it. I simply don't
> know anything.
Then why not listen to victims and law enforcement specialists?
> ...
> >Does this mean that we should discard all law?
>
> No. It means we should have sensible guidelines which match appropriate
> material to appropriate ages. Notice that the 15-21 market is often
> only available to people over 21, depending on the state.
Again, does the fact that 15-21 year olds are the only ones who wish to buy
something mean that we should sell it?
> It means that Adult stores should not have "no refund, no browsing" policies,
> or the less offensive material should be marketable in areas where shoplifting
> is less common. I know of a few stores in Colorado, located in the suburbs,
> where browsing is allowed (for a nominal admission fee of 25 cents). There
> was much less "hard-core" and almost no "ultra-hard-core" material.
Ok.
> >Or does it mean that we should attempt to report abuses through the Press
> >and to elect just and fairminded officials?
>
> In the cases of ultra-hard core, you could even encourage laws that would
> allow the victim to come forward, using the film as supporting evidence,
> and allow subpoena of all roughs, rejects, and cutting room extracts.
> You could even encourage prosecutors to find the models of such films
> to determine if they were in fact non-consenting adults.
Let's do that.
> >> Unfortunately "Miller" implies that most material cannot be banned
> >> entirely, while the "regulation" and "restriction" laws prevent
> >> "moderate" publications from competing.
> >
> >The court has also drastically limited the nature of these laws.
> >Essentially, there is nothing to prohibit material (not legally obscene)
> >from being sold in convenience stores if it is displayed in ``blinder
> >racks'' covering the lower 2/3 of the cover, or if a number of other
> >remedies against accidental exposure to minors is taken, unless zoning laws
> >explicitly limit the area in which such things may be sold.
>
> Would you buy a book, a magazine, a can of food, or a car without knowing
> what you were about to buy. There are those who do so. This actually
> makes the problem worse. After a few attempts a purchasing material which
> does not prove to be worth the money, the frustrated customer is often
> tempted to patronize more exotic retailers. Though he/she might find
> something that appeals, the combination with other factors such as dominance
> or whatever, may either offend, or arouse, causing even more complex fantisies
> to evolve.
But blinder racks do not make it impossible to remove a magazine, only to
examine *without* removing it.
> >I suspect that incidental sales of a few publications that do not make the
> >convenience store into an ``adult materials'' store would not (and could
> >not) make the convenience store subject to the same restrictions
> >as an ``adults only'' store.
>
> Much of this is political. A friend of a friend on city council might be able
> to sell adult soft porn, while a franchise owner might not be able to sell
> even very soft porn.
No agrument that this remains an abuse. This is where we need a free press.
Unfortunately, local newspapers are often too subject to pressure from local
officials.
> >Do you think that it would be appropriate for HS libraries to have copies of
> >Playboy? Hustler?
>
> Some remedial reading programs do use these materials on a regular basis.
> They also use Cosmopolitan, Playgirl, and True Romance to motivate young
> women. Pretty pictures are less than 1% of the magazines, sugar coating
> to make the medicine easier to swallow. :-).
On the other hand, the RR programs are usually supervised, and the students
are probably mostly occupied with their work.
> >As far as the ``chilling effect'', the limits of the *Miller*
> >decision upon laws and prosecution *do* need to be publicized, and we do need
> >to educate people that the notion of legal obscenity is designed to reflect
> >the minimum decency standards of the people as a whole, and not anyone's idea
> >of morality, and that those standards can only be justified in the *absence* of
> >real scientific, literary, political, etc, reasons to the contrary.
>
> The notion of legal obscenity has to be expanded. Currently selling legal
> obscenity to minors is illegal in some states and localities. When "sale to
> minors" means selling Variations to 5 year old kids, I agree. When it means
> a person is old enough to have sex, but not old enough to read about it,
> that's wrong. In Colorado, the age of consent is 15, but to watch Porkys
> you must be 17, and to buy even Playboy, you must be 18.
Fair enough, although the ``age of consent'' is a nasty thing. Lowering the
age of consent is one way to dilute the effect of `statutory rape'' laws that
say that if a 17 year old and a 18 year old have sex, the 18 year old is guilty
of rape. Remember that being physically able to have sex, and emotionally able
to deal with the consequences of *normal, loving* sexual encounters does not
necessarily mean that you are able to deal with the emotional consequences of
graphic depictions of one sort or another.
> >> There is a fine line between the vigilante who will not buy a magazine he
> >> considers obscene and the attempts of a vigilante group to prevent others
> >> from purchasing that magazine.
> >
> >The first is not a vigilante. Neither is the second if he uses such legal
> >methods as legal and peaceful picketting and boycotting.
> > from Mole End Mark Terribile
>
> Legally, this is true. When intimidation tactics are used, as was the case
> with 7-11, it is hard to call it ethical behavior.
>
> There have been several forms of "Legal Harassment" of both stores and
> patrons by organized groups. The group that took down liscence plates
> and sent notes to the owner's home, employer, and minister. The group
> that took the names of patrons and posted them on the bulletin boards
> of several churches, for purposes of boycott, harassment, sale refusal,
> employement descrimination, etc..
One of the things that this indicates is that we have a clash between the
values that we profess and our real values.
> If a man enjoys "fashion" (women who dress in erotic lingerie), it tells
> a girl who is interested in him what "bait" to use. If a woman likes
> submissive men, the submissive ones will be literally begging for a date :-),
> while the dominants will walk off to look for submissive women.
>
> These are certainly not the only factors in a relationship, be it a "one
> night stand", or marriage. They are important factors that should be
> --discussed-- before making long term commitments, rather than --discovered--
> weeks or even years after the honeymoon.
Makes sense. Still, if I found that I were into dominance or submission,
I would probably feel concerned about it, and try to understand why, and
maybe change it. If I were into ``fashion'', I probably would not. Why?
Because one involves fanstasies and arousal centered around things that I
feel are objectionable by themselves.
> Pornography may or may not "cause" other sexual crimes. If, however, if it
> enables one to express verbally, in a non-threatening situation, his own
> preferences, before acting on them with an unwilling partner, it may be a
> good thing that porn is available.
Is there a way to do this without the widespread viewing of material that
offends the sense of decency of a large part of the population?
> I am not advocating that everyone should go down to the porno shop to
> discover their kink. Just that those who have kinks (not everybody does),
> not "surprise" their partners. Decieving a partner about these preferences
> in the vain hope that they can be "turned around", is the most obscene
> form of deception.
Hard to argue ... but even here, is there a range, where one fellow might
get a thrill out of ``fashion'', but be able to have loving sex with his
partner without it, while another cannot enjoy *any* sex that does not involve
painful bondage?
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile