![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A porn producer and distributor, Mr. Ira Isaacs, was convicted in California for a little known film titled “Hollywood Scat Amateurs #10”. Apparently nine is fine and ten is too much. But all joking aside. I recently mentioned that I do not care for blood-play in sex (nor for blood-play in anything, frankly). I can now happily report that I have even less interest in people playing with feces. I cannot imagine the thrill myself, and I trust that this fascination will forever remain a nauseating mystery to me.
Nevertheless, I do love the argument that Michael Stabile makes on behalf of fetish porn. I know what it is to be on the wrong side of majoritarian tastes. It was a perfect little hell for me back in the early and mid nineties, when rape scenes were effectively verboten in this country. A lot of people may find scenes of forced sex to be as sickening as blood-play or scat-play, perhaps even worse, but that was one ban that I could personally feel the sting of. The authorities have apparently loosened up a bit on that one, thankfully, as a lot of people, both men and women, enjoy rape fantasies, but the experience of that prohibition only strengthened my appreciation for a more absolutist position on free speech. And Stabile makes the case as well as anyone.
_ _ _
Obviously Hollywood Scat Amateurs #10 was never intended to be art, and that’s the real problem with the art argument: it covers up what’s truly valuable about these films, which is that they allow us to critique of the notion of obscenity itself.
The California obscenity statute defines “prurience” as “a morbid, degrading, unhealthy interest in sex.” But this sells all sexual minorities down the river. Is it more degrading to see a representation of your desire, or be deemed “perverted” by the state? In 2012, should the state still be passing judgment on the consensual sex lives of others?
[...]
Isaacs’s attorney, Roger Diamond, may have failed to argue anything other than “artistic value” in his client’s defense, but in his closing argument, he made a point that had barely surfaced in the trial.
“People watch these movies and know that they’re not alone in the world,” Diamond said. “If people want to buy these movies, they ought to be able to.”
This is the community standard that we should be fighting for: a standard that proclaims the “deviant subset” has the same right to watch what it wants as does any average member of the community, as long as the production itself is not crime. It's a recognition that sexual speech is covered by the First Amendment, regardless of whether we think it has “serious” value.
-- Michael Stabile, "If Porn Isn’t Art, Does It Still Have a Right to Exist?" at The Daily Beast
Nevertheless, I do love the argument that Michael Stabile makes on behalf of fetish porn. I know what it is to be on the wrong side of majoritarian tastes. It was a perfect little hell for me back in the early and mid nineties, when rape scenes were effectively verboten in this country. A lot of people may find scenes of forced sex to be as sickening as blood-play or scat-play, perhaps even worse, but that was one ban that I could personally feel the sting of. The authorities have apparently loosened up a bit on that one, thankfully, as a lot of people, both men and women, enjoy rape fantasies, but the experience of that prohibition only strengthened my appreciation for a more absolutist position on free speech. And Stabile makes the case as well as anyone.
_ _ _
Obviously Hollywood Scat Amateurs #10 was never intended to be art, and that’s the real problem with the art argument: it covers up what’s truly valuable about these films, which is that they allow us to critique of the notion of obscenity itself.
The California obscenity statute defines “prurience” as “a morbid, degrading, unhealthy interest in sex.” But this sells all sexual minorities down the river. Is it more degrading to see a representation of your desire, or be deemed “perverted” by the state? In 2012, should the state still be passing judgment on the consensual sex lives of others?
[...]
Isaacs’s attorney, Roger Diamond, may have failed to argue anything other than “artistic value” in his client’s defense, but in his closing argument, he made a point that had barely surfaced in the trial.
“People watch these movies and know that they’re not alone in the world,” Diamond said. “If people want to buy these movies, they ought to be able to.”
This is the community standard that we should be fighting for: a standard that proclaims the “deviant subset” has the same right to watch what it wants as does any average member of the community, as long as the production itself is not crime. It's a recognition that sexual speech is covered by the First Amendment, regardless of whether we think it has “serious” value.
-- Michael Stabile, "If Porn Isn’t Art, Does It Still Have a Right to Exist?" at The Daily Beast
