Sunday, March 15, 2015
Friday, March 13, 2015
Revenging
Revenge porn has been in the public consciousness lately, and there's always been this nagging concern I've had about discussions to wipe it out. It's a little confusing, because I certainly don't support revenge porn. But I am concerned with anything the forces of chastity could use as a gambit in the war on porn. Anything at all porn or sex-related that even perverts can agree is unconscionable is a perfect place for the prudes to wage their war. Crack down on all the bad sex, and it tightens up our freedoms, while not really giving the opposition any room to counter, without making themselves look extremely bad.
Case in point, who could possibly be in defense of revenge porn, except those mean people who indulge in it, or else immoral perverts who don't care who gets hurt as long as somebody gets off? Right? But let's look at the so-called solution to revenge porn: criminalize the posting of any nude or sexually explicit images that you don't have the consent of the depicted individuals to post. Does it solve the problem? Sure. But the law is a blunt object. Can you see how this might put a chokehold on the sharing of sexy pics, when determining if someone has permission to post them is such a tricky thing to determine?
The foundation of this approach rests on an unchallenged assumption - that nudity and sexual activity are intrinsically private acts, and that the exposure of these acts (sometimes even *with* consent) can be uniquely damaging to the person involved. A lot of the time, this is even true, but do you know why? Because we insist that it be so. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We are ashamed of our own bodies and sexualities, and we shame other people for theirs. It's a vicious cycle. And this so-called "solution" to revenge porn just feeds into those attitudes, which, ironically, supports the acid environment which allows revenge porn to exist - if we weren't so ashamed of our bodies and sexualities, then exposing somebody's body or sexual activity would have no ill effect on that person.
So here's the real solution: end slut-shaming. Am I against people being publicly humiliated through the nonconsensual exposure of their intimate moments? Absolutely! But the solution is not to reinforce body and sex shame, and restrict people's freedom to express themselves, and make the enthusiastic sharing of sexual thoughts and images with others seem all the more creepy. The solution is to stop humiliating people who are exposed in this way (voluntarily or not). Call me a radical (because I am), but I think sharing people's sexually intimate moments should only be discouraged, much less criminalized, if the people doing it are motivated by the desire to harm, rather than the (evil, according to the puritans) desire to increase the amount of sexual pleasure being experienced by the world's population. (It occurs to me that the latter approach, which I espouse, is one of the Marquis de Sade's better legacies).
(This, also, is an excellent situation for determining the difference between true sex positives, who are concerned with sex's potential to bring people pleasure, versus the confused sex negative feminists who call themselves sex positive, but are overly concerned with political correctness, and don't want anybody experiencing any kind of sexual pleasure that might hurt the delicate sensibilities of those who dislike sex).
Case in point, who could possibly be in defense of revenge porn, except those mean people who indulge in it, or else immoral perverts who don't care who gets hurt as long as somebody gets off? Right? But let's look at the so-called solution to revenge porn: criminalize the posting of any nude or sexually explicit images that you don't have the consent of the depicted individuals to post. Does it solve the problem? Sure. But the law is a blunt object. Can you see how this might put a chokehold on the sharing of sexy pics, when determining if someone has permission to post them is such a tricky thing to determine?
The foundation of this approach rests on an unchallenged assumption - that nudity and sexual activity are intrinsically private acts, and that the exposure of these acts (sometimes even *with* consent) can be uniquely damaging to the person involved. A lot of the time, this is even true, but do you know why? Because we insist that it be so. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We are ashamed of our own bodies and sexualities, and we shame other people for theirs. It's a vicious cycle. And this so-called "solution" to revenge porn just feeds into those attitudes, which, ironically, supports the acid environment which allows revenge porn to exist - if we weren't so ashamed of our bodies and sexualities, then exposing somebody's body or sexual activity would have no ill effect on that person.
So here's the real solution: end slut-shaming. Am I against people being publicly humiliated through the nonconsensual exposure of their intimate moments? Absolutely! But the solution is not to reinforce body and sex shame, and restrict people's freedom to express themselves, and make the enthusiastic sharing of sexual thoughts and images with others seem all the more creepy. The solution is to stop humiliating people who are exposed in this way (voluntarily or not). Call me a radical (because I am), but I think sharing people's sexually intimate moments should only be discouraged, much less criminalized, if the people doing it are motivated by the desire to harm, rather than the (evil, according to the puritans) desire to increase the amount of sexual pleasure being experienced by the world's population. (It occurs to me that the latter approach, which I espouse, is one of the Marquis de Sade's better legacies).
(This, also, is an excellent situation for determining the difference between true sex positives, who are concerned with sex's potential to bring people pleasure, versus the confused sex negative feminists who call themselves sex positive, but are overly concerned with political correctness, and don't want anybody experiencing any kind of sexual pleasure that might hurt the delicate sensibilities of those who dislike sex).
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Friday, March 6, 2015
Redeeming Value
In this post I shall attempt to demonstrate that "sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video" (commonly referred to as "pornography") can very well contain "socially redeeming value", as defined by the Miller test for obscenity (i.e., serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value), and as singled out in Google's now retracted policy change for Blogger (i.e., presented in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts). Obviously, in the end, it comes down to subjective opinion - even as far as legal obscenity is concerned, the final say lies in the hands of a randomly selected jury - but I'll do my best to make a convincing case in this post. Now, let's explore each of these categories individually.
1. Literary (Definition: characteristic of literature or scholarly writing)
I don't think this category is intended to apply to images, as the Miller test in which it is included refers to both visual depictions and written descriptions. Nevertheless, I think that you could certainly describe the writing that accompanies the images on this blog - much of it on the subject of sex - as "characteristic of scholarly writing".
2. Artistic (Definition: satisfying aesthetic requirements, showing skill or excellence in execution)
Consider Exhibit A:
Here is a photographic image containing graphic and sexually suggestive (if not outright explicit - but most communities consider erections to be "pornographic") nudity. I'd like to think that it has serious artistic value. I'm not claiming it to be the equal of the Sistine Chapel, and art is an especially nebulous concept, but I think that at its core, art is a technical craft that concerns itself with aesthetics.
What makes a photographic image "artistic", in a fundamental sense, is the care and technical proficiency with which the artist approaches the process of creating the image, and the effective aesthetic value of the result. A photographic artist (usually) must deliberately compose his shot, often with a specific theme in mind that he wants to convey in the final image. He must take care that the subject is being lighted in an appealing way, and have sufficient knowledge of how to work his equipment.
Furthermore, in portrait photography, the artist must have an understanding of how to position the model for maximum aesthetic effect. Producing a compelling and appealing image takes a lot of work and deliberate effort. If you don't believe me, then try it yourself, and compare your results to mine. I didn't just snap this picture, I spent at least an hour of constant work and movement to get it, and then more time on the computer putting the different clones together.
I don't think everybody realizes this, but photography can be very physically demanding. More so for a self-portrait artist, who is constantly running back and forth between the different sides of the camera. I was sweating by the time I finished this shoot, and my thigh is still sore today from having to suspend myself in the position of the clone second from the left. I needed to be at just the right height - not so low that I could rest on my heels, and not so high that I could sit on the stool or table beside me - and I had to take several shots to get everything right (so that it looked good enough to be in the final image).
I put all this effort into the image not because that's what it takes to create pornography. Most people (at least most guys) are very simple-minded when it comes to sex. All you gotta do is point the camera and shoot. Most guys, when they're horny, they don't care one whit about artistic value. That's why most pornography is (unfortunately, in my opinion) not very aesthetically appealing. But no, I put effort into this image because I wanted it to be artistic. And I think that if you can successfully apply the rules of artistic composition to something as dull as a bowl of fruit, then there's no reason why you can't approach human bodies, or sexual activity, in the same way.
3. Political (Definition: of, relating to, or involving the state or its government)
Consider Exhibit B:
Political prophet George Orwell once wrote, "the sexual act, successfully performed, [is] rebellion." And this is true in any sexually repressive environment - including modern democracies governed by a prevailing religious sentiment that considers sexual indulgence to be a sin. The subject of pornography, in particular, butts right up against the First Amendment and its alleged protection of free speech, and holds a unique place in American jurisprudence as a category of speech not awarded First Amendment protection primarily on account of moral sentiment.
Sex is an enormously political act, and so long as depicting it could potentially land you in jail (based on purely subjective "community standards"), then every piece of pornography is a political protest - a statement on the legitimacy of an act at best only tenuously permitted - and even then, heavily regulated into obscurity - by the state. For example, in a country where homosexual acts are illegal (as they were in the United States not too many years ago), every instance of gay porn could be considered a political statement.
But if declaring pornography intrinsically political is too easy, consider the political message I've constructed above. I dare you to propose an argument that this message would be as effective without depicting the indecent (indeed, I imagine many would call it "obscene") subject I've chosen. That's its very point! It is deliberately provocative, as political protests usually aim to be, and takes advantage of a shocking subject to draw attention to itself - again, as many protests do. But unlike so many protests that use the naked human body to attract attention, here the body is inextricably linked to the message being conveyed.
Why is it the case that if you use nudity to draw attention to a political issue, it's protected as free speech, but if you use nudity to draw attention to the political issue of nudity (or sexuality) itself (e.g., public indecency, sexual discrimination, obscenity law), it's considered beyond the pale? This is just another case where sex and nudity are considered to have different rules than everything else in the world, which justifies authorities' decision to regulate based on morality where otherwise, in a free society that respects a diversity of opinions and lifestyles, that would never fly.
4. Scientific (Definition: conforming with the principles or methods used in science)
Consider Exhibit C:
Science concerns itself with asking questions about the natural world, and then conducting experiments to acquire knowledge, in order to better understand the relationship between things, and ultimately allow us to make predictions about the natural world (and its inhabitants). A rigorous experiment would involve making a hypothesis, and testing it by collecting measurements and things of that sort that I've omitted here, but hopefully this video gets you started on the right track.
I believe the best science comes from large, statistical studies, rather than anecdotal data, and as much as I'd love to survey a larger group of people's sexual habits, I am limited to just what I have (literally) on hand. But every document of sex we have is one more data point that helps flesh out our understanding of the wide diversity of human sexuality. Recall that when Kinsey performed scientific studies on human sexual behavior, the conservative public entirely ignored the scientific value of his research, citing it as obscenity and pornography motivated by a prurient interest. But ignorance is not the way of science - in fact, it's the exact opposite.
Fans of my photography may not realize this, but I do actually have a science background. In fact, I have a degree in physics. That said, biology has never been my strong suit. I think psychology and sociology are also interesting, but dealing with the human mind is very complex, and not as mathematically pure as the more logical sciences (nothing is more illogical than the human brain!). But as far as the human body is concerned, observation can go a long way in helping those of us who are inclined toward the science of sex - sexology, if you will - to understand just how our bodies work.
For example: the mechanism of arousal, and the physiological changes that occur in the body during arousal. I think that a lot of people don't realize just how much the size of the penis can change when stimulated. I occupy an interesting position in that I've had people tell me - in all sincerity - on different occasions, both that I am tiny, and huge. It really puts things into perspective for me, and it tips me off sometimes to those people who have a very narrow band of experience in matters of human sexuality.
And then there is the orgasm, which, outside of porn (and even there, the details are often blurred by the focus on the impact of the moment) I really don't think you see that much. Call me biased, but a video like this one - not all gross with closeups of internal anatomy and ooze gushing everywhere - but simple, straightforward, matter-of-fact, seems rather interesting from a scientific perspective, and I don't see what the big deal is. I'm not saying we should all go sharing videos like this at the dinner table (although it's not out of the question for particular dinner parties), but it's something most of us do (and most of those who don't probably should more often), and of all the things we do in life, why shouldn't this be studied and experienced like everything else?
4. Educational (Definition: tending or intended to educate, instruct, or inform)
Consider Exhibit D:
Sadly, providing sex education is itself a political act in this country, but here we're concerned with the educational part more so than the political part. There are a lot of instructional guides on the internet, of the strictly textual variety, on how to put on a condom - and it's not exactly rocket science (which it really can't be, because the whole point of condoms is that even stupid people should be able to use them - although that sidesteps the even more considerable hurdle of finding a way to convince the stupid people that condoms are a good idea). But I think it could only be helpful if there were actually more visual demonstrations of people putting condoms on.
Sex education is in a dire state in this country. It's improving, thanks to the internet, among other things. But as long as the stigma against sexual speech persists, people are only going to get part of the story. That's not to say that anyone learning about sex needs to be bombarded with sexual images, but the careful placement of a few unselfconscious video tutorials here and there would go a long way in breaking through the taboo on looking at and experimenting with our bodies.
A lot of people would say that pornography is an obstacle to sex education. And there may be some truth to that. But it's not the whole story. For one thing, when people denigrate pornography, they have the unanimous habit of generalizing a whole category of speech (the sexual category) as a commercial, profit-minded industry; when in truth, that sex tape you made with your wife is as much pornography as Blonde Beach Bimbos 5. And even if porn is often a fantasy, that doesn't mean it doesn't have things to teach us. Rather than censorship (which works just about as good as abstinence, and prohibition), we should be promoting porn literacy (thanks Dr. Klein!). And the best way to get smart about porn is to watch a lot of it.
5. Documentary (Definition: presenting factual material with little or no fictional additions)
Consider Exhibit E:
While somewhat less provocative than the rest of the evidence in this post, I'm including this image because it was well and truly unstaged. I thought about staging a recreation of any number of various aspects of my life, which not a few of my photographs already do (e.g., depicting me as a nudist in everyday situations, or engaged in the kind of erotic activities I normally do even when the camera's not pointing at me). But then this perfect opportunity came up, completely outside of my control.
I was exhausted after the photoshoot for Exhibit A above, and I collapsed onto the bed to get some rest. I hadn't taken my camera down yet, so it was still in position, aimed at the very bed I was lying on. My roommate happened to come in at just that moment, and, seizing the opportunity (something I wish she would do more often, but she's not as photographically inclined as I am), she pressed the shutter release on the camera and took this picture. I think you can tell, just by looking at it, that it has a different feel to most of my photography, which is one of the unfortunate limitations on self-portrait photography - it's exceptionally hard to take a picture of one's self without anticipating it.
I must admit, I'm a little puzzled about Google's inclusion of the "documentary" category in their list of exceptions, since, the way I see it, every photograph is a document of something. And who gets to decide what's worthy of being documented? Does it have to be about a famous person? Then what about celebrity sex tapes? Do the raunchy scenes edited out of reality television shows count as porn with documentary value? What about the proliferation of amateur porn on the internet? These are documents of what people are doing sexually, that could easily be exploited (similar to what Kinsey did) for scientific value.
I watched a documentary on prostitution once, that contained a few isolated scenes that were sexually explicit, and people were still complaining that those scenes weren't "necessary" to show the lives of prostitutes. Like, as if that's not completely missing the point of the documentary! Seems to me that's the perfect instance of sexually explicit material (which was clearly not shot with the intention of getting people off) with documentary value. If you can't even show sex when you're depicting the lives of prostitutes, then you've really gone off the deep end!
Still, I'd like to know what Google's idea of "documentary porn" is, because right now, the only thing I can think of that excludes blurry snapshot "documents" of guys' half erect dicks (and is that really what Google had in mind to permit?) is an arbitrary value judgment. I'll refrain from making any further comments until I do.
1. Literary (Definition: characteristic of literature or scholarly writing)
I don't think this category is intended to apply to images, as the Miller test in which it is included refers to both visual depictions and written descriptions. Nevertheless, I think that you could certainly describe the writing that accompanies the images on this blog - much of it on the subject of sex - as "characteristic of scholarly writing".
2. Artistic (Definition: satisfying aesthetic requirements, showing skill or excellence in execution)
Consider Exhibit A:
Here is a photographic image containing graphic and sexually suggestive (if not outright explicit - but most communities consider erections to be "pornographic") nudity. I'd like to think that it has serious artistic value. I'm not claiming it to be the equal of the Sistine Chapel, and art is an especially nebulous concept, but I think that at its core, art is a technical craft that concerns itself with aesthetics.
What makes a photographic image "artistic", in a fundamental sense, is the care and technical proficiency with which the artist approaches the process of creating the image, and the effective aesthetic value of the result. A photographic artist (usually) must deliberately compose his shot, often with a specific theme in mind that he wants to convey in the final image. He must take care that the subject is being lighted in an appealing way, and have sufficient knowledge of how to work his equipment.
Furthermore, in portrait photography, the artist must have an understanding of how to position the model for maximum aesthetic effect. Producing a compelling and appealing image takes a lot of work and deliberate effort. If you don't believe me, then try it yourself, and compare your results to mine. I didn't just snap this picture, I spent at least an hour of constant work and movement to get it, and then more time on the computer putting the different clones together.
I don't think everybody realizes this, but photography can be very physically demanding. More so for a self-portrait artist, who is constantly running back and forth between the different sides of the camera. I was sweating by the time I finished this shoot, and my thigh is still sore today from having to suspend myself in the position of the clone second from the left. I needed to be at just the right height - not so low that I could rest on my heels, and not so high that I could sit on the stool or table beside me - and I had to take several shots to get everything right (so that it looked good enough to be in the final image).
I put all this effort into the image not because that's what it takes to create pornography. Most people (at least most guys) are very simple-minded when it comes to sex. All you gotta do is point the camera and shoot. Most guys, when they're horny, they don't care one whit about artistic value. That's why most pornography is (unfortunately, in my opinion) not very aesthetically appealing. But no, I put effort into this image because I wanted it to be artistic. And I think that if you can successfully apply the rules of artistic composition to something as dull as a bowl of fruit, then there's no reason why you can't approach human bodies, or sexual activity, in the same way.
3. Political (Definition: of, relating to, or involving the state or its government)
Consider Exhibit B:
Political prophet George Orwell once wrote, "the sexual act, successfully performed, [is] rebellion." And this is true in any sexually repressive environment - including modern democracies governed by a prevailing religious sentiment that considers sexual indulgence to be a sin. The subject of pornography, in particular, butts right up against the First Amendment and its alleged protection of free speech, and holds a unique place in American jurisprudence as a category of speech not awarded First Amendment protection primarily on account of moral sentiment.
Sex is an enormously political act, and so long as depicting it could potentially land you in jail (based on purely subjective "community standards"), then every piece of pornography is a political protest - a statement on the legitimacy of an act at best only tenuously permitted - and even then, heavily regulated into obscurity - by the state. For example, in a country where homosexual acts are illegal (as they were in the United States not too many years ago), every instance of gay porn could be considered a political statement.
But if declaring pornography intrinsically political is too easy, consider the political message I've constructed above. I dare you to propose an argument that this message would be as effective without depicting the indecent (indeed, I imagine many would call it "obscene") subject I've chosen. That's its very point! It is deliberately provocative, as political protests usually aim to be, and takes advantage of a shocking subject to draw attention to itself - again, as many protests do. But unlike so many protests that use the naked human body to attract attention, here the body is inextricably linked to the message being conveyed.
Why is it the case that if you use nudity to draw attention to a political issue, it's protected as free speech, but if you use nudity to draw attention to the political issue of nudity (or sexuality) itself (e.g., public indecency, sexual discrimination, obscenity law), it's considered beyond the pale? This is just another case where sex and nudity are considered to have different rules than everything else in the world, which justifies authorities' decision to regulate based on morality where otherwise, in a free society that respects a diversity of opinions and lifestyles, that would never fly.
4. Scientific (Definition: conforming with the principles or methods used in science)
Consider Exhibit C:
A Qualitative Observation of the Male Sexual Response and Orgasm
Primary sources of stimulation: visual, psychological, tactile
Science concerns itself with asking questions about the natural world, and then conducting experiments to acquire knowledge, in order to better understand the relationship between things, and ultimately allow us to make predictions about the natural world (and its inhabitants). A rigorous experiment would involve making a hypothesis, and testing it by collecting measurements and things of that sort that I've omitted here, but hopefully this video gets you started on the right track.
I believe the best science comes from large, statistical studies, rather than anecdotal data, and as much as I'd love to survey a larger group of people's sexual habits, I am limited to just what I have (literally) on hand. But every document of sex we have is one more data point that helps flesh out our understanding of the wide diversity of human sexuality. Recall that when Kinsey performed scientific studies on human sexual behavior, the conservative public entirely ignored the scientific value of his research, citing it as obscenity and pornography motivated by a prurient interest. But ignorance is not the way of science - in fact, it's the exact opposite.
Fans of my photography may not realize this, but I do actually have a science background. In fact, I have a degree in physics. That said, biology has never been my strong suit. I think psychology and sociology are also interesting, but dealing with the human mind is very complex, and not as mathematically pure as the more logical sciences (nothing is more illogical than the human brain!). But as far as the human body is concerned, observation can go a long way in helping those of us who are inclined toward the science of sex - sexology, if you will - to understand just how our bodies work.
For example: the mechanism of arousal, and the physiological changes that occur in the body during arousal. I think that a lot of people don't realize just how much the size of the penis can change when stimulated. I occupy an interesting position in that I've had people tell me - in all sincerity - on different occasions, both that I am tiny, and huge. It really puts things into perspective for me, and it tips me off sometimes to those people who have a very narrow band of experience in matters of human sexuality.
And then there is the orgasm, which, outside of porn (and even there, the details are often blurred by the focus on the impact of the moment) I really don't think you see that much. Call me biased, but a video like this one - not all gross with closeups of internal anatomy and ooze gushing everywhere - but simple, straightforward, matter-of-fact, seems rather interesting from a scientific perspective, and I don't see what the big deal is. I'm not saying we should all go sharing videos like this at the dinner table (although it's not out of the question for particular dinner parties), but it's something most of us do (and most of those who don't probably should more often), and of all the things we do in life, why shouldn't this be studied and experienced like everything else?
4. Educational (Definition: tending or intended to educate, instruct, or inform)
Consider Exhibit D:
Sadly, providing sex education is itself a political act in this country, but here we're concerned with the educational part more so than the political part. There are a lot of instructional guides on the internet, of the strictly textual variety, on how to put on a condom - and it's not exactly rocket science (which it really can't be, because the whole point of condoms is that even stupid people should be able to use them - although that sidesteps the even more considerable hurdle of finding a way to convince the stupid people that condoms are a good idea). But I think it could only be helpful if there were actually more visual demonstrations of people putting condoms on.
Sex education is in a dire state in this country. It's improving, thanks to the internet, among other things. But as long as the stigma against sexual speech persists, people are only going to get part of the story. That's not to say that anyone learning about sex needs to be bombarded with sexual images, but the careful placement of a few unselfconscious video tutorials here and there would go a long way in breaking through the taboo on looking at and experimenting with our bodies.
A lot of people would say that pornography is an obstacle to sex education. And there may be some truth to that. But it's not the whole story. For one thing, when people denigrate pornography, they have the unanimous habit of generalizing a whole category of speech (the sexual category) as a commercial, profit-minded industry; when in truth, that sex tape you made with your wife is as much pornography as Blonde Beach Bimbos 5. And even if porn is often a fantasy, that doesn't mean it doesn't have things to teach us. Rather than censorship (which works just about as good as abstinence, and prohibition), we should be promoting porn literacy (thanks Dr. Klein!). And the best way to get smart about porn is to watch a lot of it.
5. Documentary (Definition: presenting factual material with little or no fictional additions)
Consider Exhibit E:
While somewhat less provocative than the rest of the evidence in this post, I'm including this image because it was well and truly unstaged. I thought about staging a recreation of any number of various aspects of my life, which not a few of my photographs already do (e.g., depicting me as a nudist in everyday situations, or engaged in the kind of erotic activities I normally do even when the camera's not pointing at me). But then this perfect opportunity came up, completely outside of my control.
I was exhausted after the photoshoot for Exhibit A above, and I collapsed onto the bed to get some rest. I hadn't taken my camera down yet, so it was still in position, aimed at the very bed I was lying on. My roommate happened to come in at just that moment, and, seizing the opportunity (something I wish she would do more often, but she's not as photographically inclined as I am), she pressed the shutter release on the camera and took this picture. I think you can tell, just by looking at it, that it has a different feel to most of my photography, which is one of the unfortunate limitations on self-portrait photography - it's exceptionally hard to take a picture of one's self without anticipating it.
I must admit, I'm a little puzzled about Google's inclusion of the "documentary" category in their list of exceptions, since, the way I see it, every photograph is a document of something. And who gets to decide what's worthy of being documented? Does it have to be about a famous person? Then what about celebrity sex tapes? Do the raunchy scenes edited out of reality television shows count as porn with documentary value? What about the proliferation of amateur porn on the internet? These are documents of what people are doing sexually, that could easily be exploited (similar to what Kinsey did) for scientific value.
I watched a documentary on prostitution once, that contained a few isolated scenes that were sexually explicit, and people were still complaining that those scenes weren't "necessary" to show the lives of prostitutes. Like, as if that's not completely missing the point of the documentary! Seems to me that's the perfect instance of sexually explicit material (which was clearly not shot with the intention of getting people off) with documentary value. If you can't even show sex when you're depicting the lives of prostitutes, then you've really gone off the deep end!
Still, I'd like to know what Google's idea of "documentary porn" is, because right now, the only thing I can think of that excludes blurry snapshot "documents" of guys' half erect dicks (and is that really what Google had in mind to permit?) is an arbitrary value judgment. I'll refrain from making any further comments until I do.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Blogger Redeems Itself
In light of the recent news that Google is acknowledging their serious misstep in attempting to crack down on sexually-oriented speech, and is rescinding their previous decision to censor relevant blogs on their Blogger platform (of which you are currently reading one), I figure it's as good a time as any to celebrate in the way that we erotophiles do best - through the sharing of pornography! I, of course, will remain cautious, as every freedom we have today is at risk of being taken away from us tomorrow. But for the time being, Google is saying porn is still ok on Blogger, and you can bet I'll toast to that.
In the 1973 case Miller v. California, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in what is now known as the "Miller test" for obscenity, that sexually-oriented speech is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (the one that guarantees, unconditionally, the freedom of speech) only if it contains socially redeeming value, described as serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Despite the very concept of obscenity being unequivocally unconstitutional (and doubly so, since it's largely inspired and defended by religious interests, which is forbidden by a different part of the First Amendment), this rule still, to this day, reflects the law of the land.
In its now aborted decision to crack down on blogs featuring "sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video", Google followed in the misguided footsteps of those judges, vowing to make exceptions only for "nudity presented in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts, or where there are other substantial benefits to the public." The only kind of speech that requires suitable justification for conditional First Amendment protection is that which involves a "prurient" (i.e., inclined toward sex) interest. This is in actual violation of the First Amendment, which is supposed to circumvent having anyone make a value judgment before determining whether an article of speech is deserving of protection. That goes against the whole principle of free speech.
And why is sex singled out? Obviously, it is a uniquely sensitive topic, on a cultural scale. But why should this be the case? I suspect that pious religious devotion has a lot to do with it, as the most powerful and influential church in the United States (the Christian church, or rather, churches), is based upon the principle that God is a perfectly sexless being (although still male, because patriarchy), who manifested himself in human form by being born to a virgin mother, and that considers chastity a heavenly virtue (rather than an inhumane burden), its opposite a grievous, deadly sin. What of the alternative, pagan religions, who believe in sexual divinity, and practice ritual sexual intercourse?
Free speech is supposed to guarantee that opposing viewpoints have equal footing in the marketplace of ideas, but a prophet advertising divine sex will have a much harder time getting his voice heard over the din of ordained priests preaching the virtue of chastity (while hypocritically practicing something else entirely in the privacy of their own altars). It's one thing if the one idea is just less popular than the other, but because the government has chosen to get involved, the "smut peddler" could wind up in jail while the evangelist earns tax breaks and receives direct representation in Congress. This is exactly what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was designed to prevent.
In essence, the Miller test is a slap in the face, and doesn't deserve to be honored. But say we were being particularly accommodating one day. Even were it reasonable to expect sexually-oriented speech to be held to a higher standard than any other speech (as anyone believes who has ever complained that a sex scene in a movie wasn't "necessary") - and it's not - but even if it were, the way we treat sexual speech betrays an enormous prejudice against it. Even taking the Miller test into account, people are extremely reluctant to award anything remotely resembling "pornography" with the legitimacy of "socially redeeming value". Get a trained artist to depict sexual intercourse with technical perfection, and people will still label it "smut", because they simply can't see past the sex.
Contrary to this bull-headed view, I've long been of the opinion that sexual speech (even the "pornographic" variety) is a lot more socially valuable than we usually give it credit for. Considering the dire state of sexual knowledge and education in the modern world, I can't believe we don't recognize that any and all depictions and discussions of sex can only help to improve our understanding of human sexuality (and even to the extent that porn is an unrealistic fantasy, it still teaches us about human sexual imagination). Not every piece of pornography is artistic, but most if not all of them can be considered educational, or even scientific, given the right perspective.
What does a dull diagram in your health textbook teach you that you can't learn from watching two people have sex? More importantly, what is that textbook diagram not teaching you? Particularly about pleasure? And is that kind of ignorance really so valuable that it warrants government sanction? Perhaps most importantly of all, who gets to make that decision for you? Plus, given all the heated debate about depictions of human sexuality, and especially considering my discussion of the First Amendment above, it seems to me that any and every piece of pornography has enormous political value. And as a bonus, how many political scandals have you heard of involve sex in some way?
Porn is simply the expression of a perspective that the United States government doesn't want you to be exposed to (mostly because it offends the wealthy and powerful benefactors who keep the machinery of the state well oiled). How, then, is suppressing that speech anything other than hugely undermining to the very principles that this free country was built on? There's no question that pornography contains a whole lot of value. The issue is whether that value is something that benefits society or, on the other hand, contributes to its moral decay. And that determination is, conveniently, governed largely by the opinions of moral conservatives.
I think I've said enough. Now it's time for pictures. I'm in the midst of a project that I'll be presenting here on this blog within the next few days that I hope will demonstrate just what kind of value "sexually explicit or graphic nude images" can hold. Stay tuned.
In the 1973 case Miller v. California, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in what is now known as the "Miller test" for obscenity, that sexually-oriented speech is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (the one that guarantees, unconditionally, the freedom of speech) only if it contains socially redeeming value, described as serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Despite the very concept of obscenity being unequivocally unconstitutional (and doubly so, since it's largely inspired and defended by religious interests, which is forbidden by a different part of the First Amendment), this rule still, to this day, reflects the law of the land.
In its now aborted decision to crack down on blogs featuring "sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video", Google followed in the misguided footsteps of those judges, vowing to make exceptions only for "nudity presented in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts, or where there are other substantial benefits to the public." The only kind of speech that requires suitable justification for conditional First Amendment protection is that which involves a "prurient" (i.e., inclined toward sex) interest. This is in actual violation of the First Amendment, which is supposed to circumvent having anyone make a value judgment before determining whether an article of speech is deserving of protection. That goes against the whole principle of free speech.
And why is sex singled out? Obviously, it is a uniquely sensitive topic, on a cultural scale. But why should this be the case? I suspect that pious religious devotion has a lot to do with it, as the most powerful and influential church in the United States (the Christian church, or rather, churches), is based upon the principle that God is a perfectly sexless being (although still male, because patriarchy), who manifested himself in human form by being born to a virgin mother, and that considers chastity a heavenly virtue (rather than an inhumane burden), its opposite a grievous, deadly sin. What of the alternative, pagan religions, who believe in sexual divinity, and practice ritual sexual intercourse?
Free speech is supposed to guarantee that opposing viewpoints have equal footing in the marketplace of ideas, but a prophet advertising divine sex will have a much harder time getting his voice heard over the din of ordained priests preaching the virtue of chastity (while hypocritically practicing something else entirely in the privacy of their own altars). It's one thing if the one idea is just less popular than the other, but because the government has chosen to get involved, the "smut peddler" could wind up in jail while the evangelist earns tax breaks and receives direct representation in Congress. This is exactly what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was designed to prevent.
In essence, the Miller test is a slap in the face, and doesn't deserve to be honored. But say we were being particularly accommodating one day. Even were it reasonable to expect sexually-oriented speech to be held to a higher standard than any other speech (as anyone believes who has ever complained that a sex scene in a movie wasn't "necessary") - and it's not - but even if it were, the way we treat sexual speech betrays an enormous prejudice against it. Even taking the Miller test into account, people are extremely reluctant to award anything remotely resembling "pornography" with the legitimacy of "socially redeeming value". Get a trained artist to depict sexual intercourse with technical perfection, and people will still label it "smut", because they simply can't see past the sex.
Contrary to this bull-headed view, I've long been of the opinion that sexual speech (even the "pornographic" variety) is a lot more socially valuable than we usually give it credit for. Considering the dire state of sexual knowledge and education in the modern world, I can't believe we don't recognize that any and all depictions and discussions of sex can only help to improve our understanding of human sexuality (and even to the extent that porn is an unrealistic fantasy, it still teaches us about human sexual imagination). Not every piece of pornography is artistic, but most if not all of them can be considered educational, or even scientific, given the right perspective.
What does a dull diagram in your health textbook teach you that you can't learn from watching two people have sex? More importantly, what is that textbook diagram not teaching you? Particularly about pleasure? And is that kind of ignorance really so valuable that it warrants government sanction? Perhaps most importantly of all, who gets to make that decision for you? Plus, given all the heated debate about depictions of human sexuality, and especially considering my discussion of the First Amendment above, it seems to me that any and every piece of pornography has enormous political value. And as a bonus, how many political scandals have you heard of involve sex in some way?
Porn is simply the expression of a perspective that the United States government doesn't want you to be exposed to (mostly because it offends the wealthy and powerful benefactors who keep the machinery of the state well oiled). How, then, is suppressing that speech anything other than hugely undermining to the very principles that this free country was built on? There's no question that pornography contains a whole lot of value. The issue is whether that value is something that benefits society or, on the other hand, contributes to its moral decay. And that determination is, conveniently, governed largely by the opinions of moral conservatives.
I think I've said enough. Now it's time for pictures. I'm in the midst of a project that I'll be presenting here on this blog within the next few days that I hope will demonstrate just what kind of value "sexually explicit or graphic nude images" can hold. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Rationalizing
My enthusiasm for making this post is considerably dampened by the recent news that puts the very future existence of this blog in serious question, but, the simple fact is, this blog is an important avenue for me, a place where I feel like I can make my voice heard (and if you knew me - the quiet, socially awkward loner who rarely ever speaks up in the presence of company - you'd know how important that is to me). So even in the face of potential exile, I choose to keep on doing what I've been doing all along, for at least as long as I can get away with it. From here on out, every post I make could be the last.
A while back I was thinking about the rationalizations that the anti-sex crowd uses to support public policies like abstinence-only education, discouraging use of contraception, and demonizing abortion, and I was trying to think of a concise and pithy way to emphasize the inconsistency and, frankly, inhumanity of their positions. I didn't come up with anything thoroughly satisfactory at the time, but just today, the concept came back to me and I thought up a graphical way to demonstrate it. So I made this comic:
My stick figure skills notwithstanding, my roommate informs me that I don't have a very effective sense of humor, even though I thought the comic was very witty. But perhaps it's also a little dense. I was merely trying to point out, in a humorously ironic way, the inconsistency of the rationalizations this anti-sex crowd makes. Instead of just admitting that they don't like sex and don't want you to have it (which would, admittedly, not be a very compelling argument), they look for ways to justify their positions. Sex is dangerous - it can lead, primarily, to unplanned pregnancies and disease.
Now, if they were actually concerned for the people involved, you'd think they'd support tools to reduce the risks of sex - i.e., contraception, or things like the HPV vaccine, which is vigorously opposed by the Catholic church. But no, that's not how it works. Making sex safer is just going to make people more likely to have it, and that's not what they want. They don't actually come out and say, "sex needs to be riskier" (at least not in those words - they do sometimes cite "increased promiscuity" as a negative) - instead they come up with bogus explanations like, it goes against god's plan, or condoms don't work - but you know that's what they're thinking.
And frankly, that's more than a little scary. The anti-sex crowd would rather you be punished with an unwanted child (to say nothing of how the child may suffer - but their suffering is inconsequential next to the suffering of premature fetuses aborted before they've even had the chance to rue the day they were born) or venereal disease, than to let you enjoy safe sex, because perverts need to be punished for their sins. Hell, AIDS is a godsend when viewed from this perspective. It's exactly the same justification people use when they tell women they deserve to be raped because they wore a skirt that's too short, or acted too flirty at the bar. These people want sex to be dangerous, because they want to be justified in telling you not to have it. That's their prerogative, but the rest of us need to realize how truly fucked up and dangerous that viewpoint is.
"Sex has consequences. If you don't believe us, go ahead and try it, and we'll do whatever it takes to make you suffer, just to prove ourselves right." It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. In closing, imagine the following conversation between a moral pundit and a libertine:
"Don't have sex!"
"Why not?"
"Because it's immoral."
"I don't care."
"Well, it's also dangerous."
"But we have tools to make it safer."
"Then they should be outlawed."
"Why? Do you want people to suffer?"
"Only those stained with sin."
"Whatever, dude."
"Wait! You know that contraception doesn't work, right?"
"If that were true, then shouldn't you be supporting it?"
A while back I was thinking about the rationalizations that the anti-sex crowd uses to support public policies like abstinence-only education, discouraging use of contraception, and demonizing abortion, and I was trying to think of a concise and pithy way to emphasize the inconsistency and, frankly, inhumanity of their positions. I didn't come up with anything thoroughly satisfactory at the time, but just today, the concept came back to me and I thought up a graphical way to demonstrate it. So I made this comic:
My stick figure skills notwithstanding, my roommate informs me that I don't have a very effective sense of humor, even though I thought the comic was very witty. But perhaps it's also a little dense. I was merely trying to point out, in a humorously ironic way, the inconsistency of the rationalizations this anti-sex crowd makes. Instead of just admitting that they don't like sex and don't want you to have it (which would, admittedly, not be a very compelling argument), they look for ways to justify their positions. Sex is dangerous - it can lead, primarily, to unplanned pregnancies and disease.
Now, if they were actually concerned for the people involved, you'd think they'd support tools to reduce the risks of sex - i.e., contraception, or things like the HPV vaccine, which is vigorously opposed by the Catholic church. But no, that's not how it works. Making sex safer is just going to make people more likely to have it, and that's not what they want. They don't actually come out and say, "sex needs to be riskier" (at least not in those words - they do sometimes cite "increased promiscuity" as a negative) - instead they come up with bogus explanations like, it goes against god's plan, or condoms don't work - but you know that's what they're thinking.
And frankly, that's more than a little scary. The anti-sex crowd would rather you be punished with an unwanted child (to say nothing of how the child may suffer - but their suffering is inconsequential next to the suffering of premature fetuses aborted before they've even had the chance to rue the day they were born) or venereal disease, than to let you enjoy safe sex, because perverts need to be punished for their sins. Hell, AIDS is a godsend when viewed from this perspective. It's exactly the same justification people use when they tell women they deserve to be raped because they wore a skirt that's too short, or acted too flirty at the bar. These people want sex to be dangerous, because they want to be justified in telling you not to have it. That's their prerogative, but the rest of us need to realize how truly fucked up and dangerous that viewpoint is.
"Sex has consequences. If you don't believe us, go ahead and try it, and we'll do whatever it takes to make you suffer, just to prove ourselves right." It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. In closing, imagine the following conversation between a moral pundit and a libertine:
"Don't have sex!"
"Why not?"
"Because it's immoral."
"I don't care."
"Well, it's also dangerous."
"But we have tools to make it safer."
"Then they should be outlawed."
"Why? Do you want people to suffer?"
"Only those stained with sin."
"Whatever, dude."
"Wait! You know that contraception doesn't work, right?"
"If that were true, then shouldn't you be supporting it?"
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Blogger Pursues Censorship Regime
I've just received a disturbing letter in my email inbox:
"Dear Blogger User,
We're writing to tell you about an upcoming change to the Blogger Content Policy that may affect your account.
In the coming weeks, we'll no longer allow blogs that contain sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video. We'll still allow nudity presented in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts, or where there are other substantial benefits to the public from not taking action on the content.
The new policy will go into effect on the 23rd of March 2015. After this policy goes into effect, Google will restrict access to any blog identified as being in violation of our revised policy. No content will be deleted, but only blog authors and those with whom they have expressly shared the blog will be able to see the content we've made private.
...
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team"
Here's a link to more information about the policy change: https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/6170671?p=policy_update&rd=1
And an article discussing the repercussions of this egregious infringement of the freedom of speech: http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-bans-explicit-adult-content-from-blogger-blogs/
What does this mean? Well, if my blog suddenly disappears from the internet in a month from now, it's because Google decided that the world can't handle what I'm laying down. It's hard to predict which side of the line my blog is going to fall on - but that's kinda the point, because from here on out, Blogger is going to be making arbitrary distinctions between protected speech and restricted speech. It's exactly the same kind of discrimination that the federal government employs in singling out sexual speech as uniquely devoid of first amendment protections, simply in light of generations of religious moralism that idolizes sexual purity (a strategy that is itself in violation of the Constitution's separation of church and state).
If your speech involves sex, then it has to be benign enough (not too explicit), and has to carry some socially redeeming value, otherwise the governing body (whether that's Google Inc., or the United States Government - can anyone even tell the difference in this corporatocracy anymore?) has the authority to tell you you're not allowed to say it (and others aren't allowed to hear it), first amendment be damned. No other category of speech has those requirements. And you know why? Because it violates the whole principle of freedom of speech. But where sex is involved, the normal rules don't apply. Not even those of the United States Constitution.
Maybe I'll get lucky, and my blog will have enough "redeeming value" (so Google employees are sociologists and anthropologists, now?). But the best case scenario is that I'll be more wary of what I post from here on out, lest I lose the privilege of hosting a blog on Blogger (one of the biggest blogging platforms on the internet). This is called a Chilling Effect. It inspires self-censorship via a regime of fear. It's the kind of strategy employed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And where sexual speech is involved, it's fast becoming the norm here in what we thought was supposed to be the free world.
Seriously, I'm terrified of the trend I'm seeing towards censorship of the internet, where speech is supposed to reign free. We take it for granted that sex is singularly damaging to the human psyche (despite the fact that it is entirely natural, much less harmful than violence, and that crippling people with sexual shame is unhealthy and inhumane), because that's just the way we've always known it to be. But the free-thinkers, the sex-positives who would suggest an alternate strategy, have as much right to express their opinions in public as anyone else. Except they're rarely given the opportunity. You're allowed to praise dogma, but dissent will be silenced. Is this how we do it in America? Is this how we do it on the world wild web?
Increasingly, the answer is becoming yes.
God, I'm just shaking with the rage and frustration of this decision. Please, tell me what I can do to protest.
Update (2/27/15): It appears that Google is backing down on this policy change in an unprecedented move that actually takes into account user feedback, and can be considered a rare victory for free speech.
"Dear Blogger User,
We're writing to tell you about an upcoming change to the Blogger Content Policy that may affect your account.
In the coming weeks, we'll no longer allow blogs that contain sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video. We'll still allow nudity presented in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts, or where there are other substantial benefits to the public from not taking action on the content.
The new policy will go into effect on the 23rd of March 2015. After this policy goes into effect, Google will restrict access to any blog identified as being in violation of our revised policy. No content will be deleted, but only blog authors and those with whom they have expressly shared the blog will be able to see the content we've made private.
...
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team"
Here's a link to more information about the policy change: https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/6170671?p=policy_update&rd=1
And an article discussing the repercussions of this egregious infringement of the freedom of speech: http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-bans-explicit-adult-content-from-blogger-blogs/
What does this mean? Well, if my blog suddenly disappears from the internet in a month from now, it's because Google decided that the world can't handle what I'm laying down. It's hard to predict which side of the line my blog is going to fall on - but that's kinda the point, because from here on out, Blogger is going to be making arbitrary distinctions between protected speech and restricted speech. It's exactly the same kind of discrimination that the federal government employs in singling out sexual speech as uniquely devoid of first amendment protections, simply in light of generations of religious moralism that idolizes sexual purity (a strategy that is itself in violation of the Constitution's separation of church and state).
If your speech involves sex, then it has to be benign enough (not too explicit), and has to carry some socially redeeming value, otherwise the governing body (whether that's Google Inc., or the United States Government - can anyone even tell the difference in this corporatocracy anymore?) has the authority to tell you you're not allowed to say it (and others aren't allowed to hear it), first amendment be damned. No other category of speech has those requirements. And you know why? Because it violates the whole principle of freedom of speech. But where sex is involved, the normal rules don't apply. Not even those of the United States Constitution.
Maybe I'll get lucky, and my blog will have enough "redeeming value" (so Google employees are sociologists and anthropologists, now?). But the best case scenario is that I'll be more wary of what I post from here on out, lest I lose the privilege of hosting a blog on Blogger (one of the biggest blogging platforms on the internet). This is called a Chilling Effect. It inspires self-censorship via a regime of fear. It's the kind of strategy employed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And where sexual speech is involved, it's fast becoming the norm here in what we thought was supposed to be the free world.
Seriously, I'm terrified of the trend I'm seeing towards censorship of the internet, where speech is supposed to reign free. We take it for granted that sex is singularly damaging to the human psyche (despite the fact that it is entirely natural, much less harmful than violence, and that crippling people with sexual shame is unhealthy and inhumane), because that's just the way we've always known it to be. But the free-thinkers, the sex-positives who would suggest an alternate strategy, have as much right to express their opinions in public as anyone else. Except they're rarely given the opportunity. You're allowed to praise dogma, but dissent will be silenced. Is this how we do it in America? Is this how we do it on the world wild web?
Increasingly, the answer is becoming yes.
God, I'm just shaking with the rage and frustration of this decision. Please, tell me what I can do to protest.
Update (2/27/15): It appears that Google is backing down on this policy change in an unprecedented move that actually takes into account user feedback, and can be considered a rare victory for free speech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)