Interesting stuff. As most of you will know, I tend to be fairly dogmatic when it comes to one or two individuals, and while I am nowhere nearer supporting websites with choice phrases like "For (x), women are simply fuck-toys who exist to be abused and degraded for our viewing pleasure", I do find my attitudes changing in respect to what I don't personal find to my taste. Don't get me wrong, I've never called for something to be banned (other then the stuff I've just mentioned) but I've always felt dubious about the more extreme things and heavy S+M which I'm not personally aroused by. Now I find myself leaning more towards a disinterest.
Anyone who can get hold of a copy should read Michael Hame's 'Dirty Squad: Inside Story of the Obscene Publications Branch', in particular the chapter on 'Operation Spanner' in all this. It tackles the case of a violent S+M tape Hames found while investigating paedophilia. Convinctions were ultimately made against all parties on the basis that consent is no defence in the occurance of actual bodily harm. Some interesting comments are made.
Has anyone seen the 'Gag Factor' that Gauge appears in? I forget which number it is, but I did squirm in discomfort when he slaps her face for 'using her teath' while giving him head. She apologises and looks up at him like she is really vulnerable and doesn't really look very comfortable at all. Now this is part of her appeal, I grant you, and in that respect no doubt she plays on it a bit, but I still found it a little unsettling. Is that because it's wrong? Or is it simply not to my tastes? Some on this forum tend to regularly jump down other's throats at the slightest hint of objectivity, however is there need to draw the line at some point? Or do things just get more and more extreme because "well, someone likes it, and what right have we to pass moral judgement on their interests"?
Social acceptability of porn: a Rimbaud rumination
-
Rimbaud
Re: Social acceptability of porn: a Rimbaud rumina
Thoughtful.
Gauge appears in the original Gag Factor, according to IAFD anyway. Gauge, in fact, arouses less concern in me than is usual for this type of production. Not to put too fine upon it, the breadth of her appeal (in short, her fantastic looks) means that she probably has all the options she wants in the business, and *probably* doesn't have to do the heavy raincoater stuff if she doesn't want to. I speculate, but I suspect that she knew what she was getting into, and did it because she wanted, rather than needed, the cash. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that she was actually paid a fair whack to be the covergirl unit-shifter for that title... I have no basis for this other than speculation, and I may be wrong.
It seems we broadly agree about this kind of stuff, that's it's distasteful but there's no reason to ban it. I don't think we can reasonably be attacked for our views - just because somebody likes it, doesn't mean we have to - and just because it's legal, and we agree that it should be legal, doesn't mean we have to agree that it's moral. Many things which incur varying degrees of moral opprobium are tolerated by law - such as the right of fascist parties to publish pamphlets in the exercise of their right to free speech.
There are, of course, limits to the extent to which the principle of consent is actually reflected in law. If there weren't, the argument goes, then you'd be able to buy Rocco Siffredi four-packs in WH Smith. In my view, laws relating to the manner in which porn can be distributed can actually be seen more as a means of policing, and upholding, the liberal principle of consent. It's like - you can produce and sell porn provided it's all consensual and it doesn't harm anyone; but we'll limit the channels through which it can be distributed, to *ensure* that it doesn't harm anyone, such as children who might stumble across Up Your Ass 7865 in Woolworths.
When you get to the issue of sado-masochism and actual bodily harm, you are reaching the point where the law actually does say 'adios' to the liberal principle of consent. The Operation Spanner events and the test case that came out of them are one demonstration of consensual activity, harmful to only the participants, which is forbidden outright by the law of the land.
So, should it be legal to cause Actual Bodily Harm to someone if they consent? It should be stressed that the harm caused to the participants in the Op Spanner case far exceeded the slap-and-gag sort of treatment in the films we've been dicussing. But whether that actually makes it morally worse is debatable. As I've said, you can argue that the participants in Slap Happy etc, are being economically exploited, which is a difficult argument to run in respect of the Op Spanner video, for which - as far as I know - nobody was paid any money.
On the other hand, there may have been other power/exploitation relationships at play. Who knows. But it's clear that deciding which of Slap Happy and the 'Spanner' tapes is morally 'worse' is not as simple an issue as at first it appears. Is it the severity of the act consensually perpetrated, or the degree of exploitation involved whatever the act, which determines trhe level of our distaste? Probably both - and I would suggest that both, when taken to extremes, can reach the point where the reasonable individual says that enough libertarianism is enough. To illustrate - my own personal view is that, in application of the principle of consent, both Slap Happy and consensual S&M tapes involving ABH should be legal (and so should a good deal of stuff which is neither as painful as S&M nor as exploitative as Slap Happy, like anal fisting). But be careful how far you take that 'principle of consent' thang. Should killing be legal if the victim consents? This is a lively debate in places like the Netherlands. Many (me included) would say no, even though, in the classic euthaniasia case, there may be not even the slightest hint of exploitation. Clearly the potency of the act overcomes my liberal adherence to the principle of consent. And, in much the same way, I believe that the exploitation element can become strong enough to mean that, even where the exploited has consented, a given act should be censured by the authorities. I wouldn't apply that to any porn film I've ever seen, in fact, (if we're talking purely economic exploitation at least) I possibly wouldn't apply it to any porn film shot in a western country where there is an economic alternative, i.e. the girl could always go on the dole. But it's not too hard to imagine exploitation of a sort which would merit legal censure.
Gauge appears in the original Gag Factor, according to IAFD anyway. Gauge, in fact, arouses less concern in me than is usual for this type of production. Not to put too fine upon it, the breadth of her appeal (in short, her fantastic looks) means that she probably has all the options she wants in the business, and *probably* doesn't have to do the heavy raincoater stuff if she doesn't want to. I speculate, but I suspect that she knew what she was getting into, and did it because she wanted, rather than needed, the cash. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that she was actually paid a fair whack to be the covergirl unit-shifter for that title... I have no basis for this other than speculation, and I may be wrong.
It seems we broadly agree about this kind of stuff, that's it's distasteful but there's no reason to ban it. I don't think we can reasonably be attacked for our views - just because somebody likes it, doesn't mean we have to - and just because it's legal, and we agree that it should be legal, doesn't mean we have to agree that it's moral. Many things which incur varying degrees of moral opprobium are tolerated by law - such as the right of fascist parties to publish pamphlets in the exercise of their right to free speech.
There are, of course, limits to the extent to which the principle of consent is actually reflected in law. If there weren't, the argument goes, then you'd be able to buy Rocco Siffredi four-packs in WH Smith. In my view, laws relating to the manner in which porn can be distributed can actually be seen more as a means of policing, and upholding, the liberal principle of consent. It's like - you can produce and sell porn provided it's all consensual and it doesn't harm anyone; but we'll limit the channels through which it can be distributed, to *ensure* that it doesn't harm anyone, such as children who might stumble across Up Your Ass 7865 in Woolworths.
When you get to the issue of sado-masochism and actual bodily harm, you are reaching the point where the law actually does say 'adios' to the liberal principle of consent. The Operation Spanner events and the test case that came out of them are one demonstration of consensual activity, harmful to only the participants, which is forbidden outright by the law of the land.
So, should it be legal to cause Actual Bodily Harm to someone if they consent? It should be stressed that the harm caused to the participants in the Op Spanner case far exceeded the slap-and-gag sort of treatment in the films we've been dicussing. But whether that actually makes it morally worse is debatable. As I've said, you can argue that the participants in Slap Happy etc, are being economically exploited, which is a difficult argument to run in respect of the Op Spanner video, for which - as far as I know - nobody was paid any money.
On the other hand, there may have been other power/exploitation relationships at play. Who knows. But it's clear that deciding which of Slap Happy and the 'Spanner' tapes is morally 'worse' is not as simple an issue as at first it appears. Is it the severity of the act consensually perpetrated, or the degree of exploitation involved whatever the act, which determines trhe level of our distaste? Probably both - and I would suggest that both, when taken to extremes, can reach the point where the reasonable individual says that enough libertarianism is enough. To illustrate - my own personal view is that, in application of the principle of consent, both Slap Happy and consensual S&M tapes involving ABH should be legal (and so should a good deal of stuff which is neither as painful as S&M nor as exploitative as Slap Happy, like anal fisting). But be careful how far you take that 'principle of consent' thang. Should killing be legal if the victim consents? This is a lively debate in places like the Netherlands. Many (me included) would say no, even though, in the classic euthaniasia case, there may be not even the slightest hint of exploitation. Clearly the potency of the act overcomes my liberal adherence to the principle of consent. And, in much the same way, I believe that the exploitation element can become strong enough to mean that, even where the exploited has consented, a given act should be censured by the authorities. I wouldn't apply that to any porn film I've ever seen, in fact, (if we're talking purely economic exploitation at least) I possibly wouldn't apply it to any porn film shot in a western country where there is an economic alternative, i.e. the girl could always go on the dole. But it's not too hard to imagine exploitation of a sort which would merit legal censure.
-
jj
Re: Social acceptability of porn: a Rimbaud rumina
.....all very logical and laudable up to the point where you decide against voluntary euthanasia on what I gather are emotional grounds: this is the nub of the whole thing- whether a human has the right to decide what he/she does with their life, even if that decision is regarded by many as deleterious. I would say yes, even to the point of death.
I have never understood why we afford the release from intolerable suffering to dumb animals but deny it to the far more sentient (and hence far more agonised) terminally-ill patients in our midst. Properly regulated, there need be no fear that coercion is involved.
I would aargue against, say, the making of a 'snuff' movie where the victim was apparently willing on the ground that this is not a fit subject for the provision of 'entertainment', rather than on the grounds of restriction of individual liberty.....and that anyone, apparently healthy, who consents to death is mentally ill and threfore needs treatment rather than 'death by circus'.
I have never understood why we afford the release from intolerable suffering to dumb animals but deny it to the far more sentient (and hence far more agonised) terminally-ill patients in our midst. Properly regulated, there need be no fear that coercion is involved.
I would aargue against, say, the making of a 'snuff' movie where the victim was apparently willing on the ground that this is not a fit subject for the provision of 'entertainment', rather than on the grounds of restriction of individual liberty.....and that anyone, apparently healthy, who consents to death is mentally ill and threfore needs treatment rather than 'death by circus'.
-
mike johnson
OT/Re: Social acceptability of porn: a Rimbaud rum
Yes, I'd say there are places in the U.S. where porn is considered in a worse light than in the U.K.--Salt Lake City & the heart of Alabama come to mind.But even in those places, things are improving; vendors are using the federal courts to strike back at harassing state & local officials.I live on the fringe of the Bible Belt myself, & 15 years ago, local churches successfully campaigned to limit "Playboy" & "PH". Now, HC vids are widely available, & no one seems to be bothered; local authorities say it is too expensive to try to prosecute or file civil suits against the shops.As long as a decade ago, in the judicial circuit south of me, the State Attorney was a rabid anti-porn crusader; he was defeated in his effort to be re-elected by a total unknown, & not in the general election, but in the primary, in which only (generally conservative) Republicans may vote. Even he admitted he was done in by the anti-anti-porn vote; when he ran again 4 years later, he was chastened, & said, "What people want to watch in the privacy of their homes is none of my business; I have learned my lesson."In last summer's "Cosmoplitan" sex survey, 90% of the women who responded online said they had seen porn.For the first times, the 2002 "AFW Guide" has hardcore photos in it--distributed nationwide. So things are definitely changing all over, seems to me.But this is a very broad & tenuous subject to address in a forum post....
-
mike johnson
OT/Re: OT/Re: Social acceptability of porn: a Rimb
BTW--I am assuming everyone knows there is nothing even remotely like the BBFC in the States?