But what really differentiates it from all the other stuff?
I think I can maybe see a difference – but more research is needed.

Sorry if I caused any offence, Daniel. It was simply too good an opportunity to miss.

I’ve sometimes wondered what the women who did porn think when they see the stuff they did is still in circulation – and making money for someone, years after they got their one off performance fee. I’m sure many regret it – particularly when family and people they know got to hear about it.

There is a link to Anna Span’s website in the first post on this Liberal Democrat supporting site.
I won’t do the link to it directly myself as it looks pretty full on, and I don’t think it could be called ‘soft core’.

So only look if you want to.
http://miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org/1031990.html

Just because you feel it, doesn’t mean it is there.

Fucking animals ain’t my thing but if it’s yours I’m sure you can get them stubby, hairy digits of yours onto a keyboard and find some.

Now you all take care of yourselves won’t you?

Smart question.

A lot of people do a lot of things they’d rather not because they want or need the money. I’m one of them.

My view is that the state should provide the basic needs of food clothing and shelter for those unable to provide it for themselves. After that it is up to each person to make their own decisions.

I think it is tempting, but patronising, to imply that
those who work in the sex industry are coerced into doing so.

But what would be compulsion, in your opinion? Needing the money?

Try this angle – are you saying there is nothing that could be portrayed in a porn film that anyone would be entitled to disagree with?

I wouldn’t watch porn to find something with which to disagree. I’d come to Liberal Conspiracy.

Nor would I watch it for the plot, dialogue or cinematography.

Would you?

If you are asking should it be censored, the answer is that, providing it is produced by consenting adults without any element of compulsion, then no, it should not.

Lewis Carroll was a paedophile and the Kama Sutra is an erotic lovemaking guide for couples. Neither has anything to do with pornography.

Kama Sutra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kama_Sutra

“Erotic art in Pompeii and Herculaneum was discovered in the ancient cities around the bay of Naples (particularly of Pompeii and Herculaneum) after extensive excavations began in the 18th century. The city was found to be full of erotic art and frescoes, symbols, and inscriptions regarded by its excavators as pornographic. Even many recovered household items had a sexual theme. . . ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_art_in_Pompeii_and_Herculaneum

Ovid: Ars Amatoria (1 BC)

Lewis Carroll, author of Alice in Wonderland, liked photographing young girls, some “undraped” – a limited selection of his portfolio is shown in the wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Carroll#Photography

I’m apt to compare the literary canons in English and French literature.

The French can put up De Sade (late 18th century) and L’Histoire d’O (1954) and we can put up John Cleland’s Fanny Hill (1748) and DH Lawrence: Lady Chatterley’s Lover (1928). The Americans can put up Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer (1934), the Irish: James Joyce’s Ulysses (1922), the the Scots can wheel out the verse of Robbie Burns (late 18th century).

For uncertain reasons, the French contributions are distinctively sado-masochistic.

> The whole point of porn is the objectification of the image or depiction. If it doesn’t do that, it is not any good. So whilst some feminists complain about this, what they are really objecting to is the way in which the male sexual impulse works.

Still not sure how you fell that porn, or any media, should be treated as value-free.

The feminists do have _Feminist Porn Film of the Year_ awards I believe- which suggests they find some porn better fits their values than other.

Try this angle – are you saying there is nothing that could be portrayed in a porn film that anyone would be entitled to disagree with?

Pagar, there is another value judgement that can be applied to porn. Whether it’s actually any good. There’s the illegal and exploitative stuff that Daniel mentions (some of which should be illegal, some of which shouldn’t, see previous debates about the extreme porn ban), but there’s also merely the utter dross that simply doesn’t interest me much these days.

Sure, when I was a lot younger, pretty much anything involving nekkid ladies was great, but these days I’d like something that isn’t dull, derivative and badly shot.

Haven’t actually watched any of Anna’s stuff; suspect Jennie will want to get hold of some sooner rather than later now.

Any indication that the political classes won’t be sensible? Just asking. Or do I smell a straw man?

Not sur way you’re asking me questions, as will have a seriously good chance of drifting far off topic but I’m sorry to tell you that political correctness has nowt to do with it.

There is some nasty ass pr0n out there, vicious nasty shit that is on the cusp of criminal and some of it, with animals and what not, is criminal. That is what I meant, so hope that’s cleared it all up.

haven’t feminists argued in the past against porn on the basis of the ‘value judgement’ of it’s (problematic) depiction of women

As I said above, there is an argument there- just not a very good one.

The whole point of porn is the objectification of the image or depiction. If it doesn’t do that, it is not any good. So whilst some feminists complain about this, what they are really objecting to is the way in which the male sexual impulse works.

A bit pointless really. Like Laurie’s post arguing for censorship of advertising.

And of course there are other feminists who want to defend a woman’s right to participate in the industry if she wants to- an argument for the exercise of individual free will that, you will not be surprised to hear, I find much more compelling.

Actually, she started off sensibly with:

‘And yet the automatic conflation of all sexual images and ideas with misogyny by media outlets reporting these pieces of research is evidence of a dangerous trend in contemporary thought: the idea that women and girls need to be protected from any and all sexual images and tropes for the good of our moral health.’

…before her authoritarian instincts took over in the comment section and she proposed that all advertising be vetted by a panel of feminists before broadcast.

And there was something about a new deodorant called ‘Dialectic’ but I couldn’t make much sense out of it.

I lost the bit of paper I wrote it down on – but I’m sure it’s her.
She said that she was even up for appearing in some of her own movies.
Which is totally fair enough too. (And quite sexy – if one’s allowed to say that).

“There is an argument (not a very good one) that the viewing of porn is debasing to the consumer and/or the producer but there is no argument that it is susceptible to any other value judgement.”

Maybe I’m wrong – but haven’t feminists argued in the past against porn on the basis of the ‘value judgement’ of it’s (problematic) depiction of women.

Also, just this week Laurie Pennry objects to objectification of women in posters and media – and it seems logical that concern would also apply to the media of porn too?

The new amendments agreed today sort out and clarify my qualms about the provisions, and the party overall remains committed to trying to block the bill if at all possible. In addition, on Sunday a motion to conference will hopefully be debated updating party policy to a genuinely liberal position on so called Digitial Economy matters generally.

And really, not every MP attends every vote, mostly numbers not attending are in proportion across party lines, sometimes this is for agreed reasons like committees away on business, etc. Attacking an entire party because the exact same proportion of their MPs didn’t turn up as the other parties?

Both completely off topic and shows complete lack of grasp of how Parliament works.

Pornography is defined as “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.”

My Greek (or Latin? I forget) is a wee bit rusty but I believe the word “pornography”, literally, means depictions of sexual slavery. Graphos = writing/or image, porne = prostitute or sex-slave.

Your definition fits “erotica” fine… now for a debate on porn v. erotica

oh and @23
according to wiki she had her first film aired on Television X which is, of course, owned by Dirty Des .