Comments on: The Iron Fist of the War on Porn http://www.mskitka.com/2005/10/27/the-iron-fist-of-the-war-on-porn/ Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:48:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: MsKitka.com » Blog Archive » What’s Porn Got to Do With it? http://www.mskitka.com/2005/10/27/the-iron-fist-of-the-war-on-porn/#comment-705 Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:15:12 +0000 http://www.mskitka.com/2005/10/27/the-iron-fist-of-the-war-on-porn/#comment-705 [...] Besides, don’t forget that Thailand joined the war on porn… so this story is a perfect front for the Thai Prime Minister to validate his battle to eliminate all pornographic materials in Thailand. [...] […] Besides, don’t forget that Thailand joined the war on porn… so this story is a perfect front for the Thai Prime Minister to validate his battle to eliminate all pornographic materials in Thailand. […]

]]> by: Ms. Kitka’s Red Chronicle » Blog Archive » Iranian Pornography Dissidents http://www.mskitka.com/2005/10/27/the-iron-fist-of-the-war-on-porn/#comment-432 Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:13:27 +0000 http://www.mskitka.com/2005/10/27/the-iron-fist-of-the-war-on-porn/#comment-432 [...] Every country has a different way of treating pornography. While it’s banned in India, and those caught watching are punished with humiliation, the United States and Thailand both declared an all out war on it this year. [...] […] Every country has a different way of treating pornography. While it’s banned in India, and those caught watching are punished with humiliation, the United States and Thailand both declared an all out war on it this year. […]

]]> by: LEB http://www.mskitka.com/2005/10/27/the-iron-fist-of-the-war-on-porn/#comment-320 Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:17:06 +0000 http://www.mskitka.com/2005/10/27/the-iron-fist-of-the-war-on-porn/#comment-320 Interesting thought - is it really a "war on porn," or a culture clash between victorian, religious and oppressive views of sexuality, vs. a more "enlightened" clutural revolution? Or is it really the beginnings of what amounts to industry reform that in effect legitimizes the industry? From a cultural perspective, we went through something like this in the 60s, the so-called "free love" movement... then for some reason, we "grew out of it." Love wasn't free anymore. Or so it seemed to me, anyway, child of the 70s and 80s that I was. And that was well before AIDS reared its ugly head. The worst you could end up with was a case of the clap. Porn per se treads a grey, ragged line between pure self-expression, and and physical and sexual abuse and exploitation of men, women and children. They aren't really connected, but there is a rather high correlation between the two, an unavoidable occupational hazard as it were, due to their close proximity in the subject area. And it used to be that way in the movie industry, too, without the sexual overtones until child labor laws and an inevitable breakdown in the "studio system" legal lock on performers sort of broke the culture. It's still there, in a different form. The exploitees are generally plied with a lot more money and are more-or-less free agents. Recall that the three stooges and the kids in "the little rascals" basically got shafted, completely, by the studios in the end. So is the "war on porn" really a misnomer? If we had a "adult screen actors guild" out there defending reasonable wages for porn performers, and enforceable laws preventing outright abuse and exploitation of performers, would it really be all that different from any other movie production? Interesting question. There are a few movies, e.g. "Original Sin," "The Color of Night," "Showgirls," etc. that have "love scenes" in them that are for all practical purposes porn. All they would need is one good penetration shot and they'd be right there - and with A-list acting, to boot. In the end, what's the difference? Enforceable labor laws, enforceable contracts that defend the "rights" of performers - and actors' guilds that have teeth. The christian right may be leading the charge "against" porn based on morals, but in the end, the thing that's actually happening to the real fundiment of the legal framework is in effect a legitimizing of the "legal" and economically defensable aspect of porn as a mode of self-expression. It's a double-edged sword. One that they may not, in the end, fully appreciate. They may win a battle or two, but in the end, I think they'll lose the war - and legitimize the industry as a whole. By their own hand. Interesting thought - is it really a “war on porn,” or a culture clash between victorian, religious and oppressive views of sexuality, vs. a more “enlightened” clutural revolution? Or is it really the beginnings of what amounts to industry reform that in effect legitimizes the industry?

From a cultural perspective, we went through something like this in the 60s, the so-called “free love” movement… then for some reason, we “grew out of it.” Love wasn’t free anymore. Or so it seemed to me, anyway, child of the 70s and 80s that I was. And that was well before AIDS reared its ugly head. The worst you could end up with was a case of the clap.

Porn per se treads a grey, ragged line between pure self-expression, and and physical and sexual abuse and exploitation of men, women and children. They aren’t really connected, but there is a rather high correlation between the two, an unavoidable occupational hazard as it were, due to their close proximity in the subject area.

And it used to be that way in the movie industry, too, without the sexual overtones until child labor laws and an inevitable breakdown in the “studio system” legal lock on performers sort of broke the culture. It’s still there, in a different form. The exploitees are generally plied with a lot more money and are more-or-less free agents. Recall that the three stooges and the kids in “the little rascals” basically got shafted, completely, by the studios in the end.

So is the “war on porn” really a misnomer? If we had a “adult screen actors guild” out there defending reasonable wages for porn performers, and enforceable laws preventing outright abuse and exploitation of performers, would it really be all that different from any other movie production?

Interesting question. There are a few movies, e.g. “Original Sin,” “The Color of Night,” “Showgirls,” etc. that have “love scenes” in them that are for all practical purposes porn. All they would need is one good penetration shot and they’d be right there - and with A-list acting, to boot. In the end, what’s the difference? Enforceable labor laws, enforceable contracts that defend the “rights” of performers - and actors’ guilds that have teeth.

The christian right may be leading the charge “against” porn based on morals, but in the end, the thing that’s actually happening to the real fundiment of the legal framework is in effect a legitimizing of the “legal” and economically defensable aspect of porn as a mode of self-expression. It’s a double-edged sword. One that they may not, in the end, fully appreciate.

They may win a battle or two, but in the end, I think they’ll lose the war - and legitimize the industry as a whole. By their own hand.

]]>