Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,soc.singles Subject: Re: Grey Porn (Long) Message-ID: <434@cci632.UUCP> Date: Tue, 30-Sep-86 21:35:58 EDT Article-I.D.: cci632.434 Posted: Tue Sep 30 21:35:58 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 3-Oct-86 00:40:44 EDT References: <391@cci632.UUCP> <1577@mtx5a.UUCP> Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Distribution: net Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY Lines: 416 Summary: Grounds for agreement. Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:404 net.legal:3751 soc.singles:304 In article <1577@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >There's a lot here; I will skip a lot of the points made to answer the big ones. >> >In the 1957 case of *Roth v. United States*, >> Under this law, a great deal of useful information was combined with >> the "porn". >Curious; my understanding was that when a case made it to the Supreme Court, >under *Roth* it as almost inevitably thrown out. Often, was because the materials in question had educational value. Birth control, impotence, precautions for sex, and other articles were included for the protection under the "socially redeeming value" clause. Other material included political viewpoints, news, and information not often given exposure elsewhere. >> >The 1973 case of *Miller v. California* tightened this up just a little: >> Actually the "Miller" case removed the "redeeming social value" aspect >> and furthermore polarized the porn market. >The *Miller* case requires that the work be viewed as a whole. This is true, but the Miller case does not require that a work have literary merit. >> Worse, the possibility that because of restrictions, such as the current >> "rating system" for films, the "milder" forms of "porn" might go the way >> of films, either "all sex" or "nothing". >The government has no hand at all in the MPAA rating system. This is true, but the MPAA rating system is used as a statutory rather than advisory guideline in most, if not all states. In Colorado, to view a "X rated" materials, you must be 18. In New York, you must be 21. You must have proof of age as well. >The curious problem that better informing people about ``literature'' (here >include films, sound recordings, etc) allows them to better exercise their >prejudices, and reduces the types of material available is hardly caused by >government regulation, although you may reasonably argue that we don't need to >add even one more possible source ... It is the option of a store owner to order and sell, whatever material he wishes. With porn, however, the owner may have to go "all or nothing", with zoning ordincances, appropriate markings, paint over windows to obscure view, and other "nuisance law" requirements. >> There is probably a concern that, because of legislation, restrictions, or >> regulation, much of the "middle ground" will dissappear. Cheesecake such >> as "Vargas Girls", "Strip-Tease", and lingerie have virtually dissappeared >> and been replaced by "raw sex", "full nudity", and "kink". > >Believe it or not, I agree that this is unfortunate; I don't think that the >older stuff is much likely to be harmful to anyone, even most adolsecents, >and I *do* happen to enjoy some of it. I also admit to enjoying an occasional >nude, but I don't enjoy the cruder stuff. Am I arguing for the legitimacy of >my own preferred vices? It's possible, I suppose. It sounds like we have similar goals. Most fetish, "cheesecake", and "lingerie" material has gone into the "bondage", S&M, and Transexual markets. In fact, some materials don't even depict full nudity, just fetish clothing. The fact that the models are tied up, or holding whips, paddles, and similar "props" is a way to incorporate two markets with one publication. If you were to attempt to perchase "cheesecake" materials based on the covers however, you could be quite shocked to discover that a $17.00 magazine with cheesecake on the cover contained full nudity, men torturing women, and/or women torturing men, but no other "cheesecake". One magazine actually shows what appear to be beautifully dressed women, and inside is all men dressed as women, with genitalia showing. >But the changes happened because of increased willingness of people to print >the cruder stuff, and of people to buy it, Often, people do not know what they are buying until after they've bought it. The only current postal restriction I know of is unsolicited mailing of sexually explicit materials. >If anything, requiring that specific acts or depictions be prohibited, and >making it clear that ``cheesecake'' (and ``beefcake'' as well ...) are not >among those that may be prohibited, seems likely to *increase* the amount of >enticing (rather than explicit) and non-obsessive material available. In a sense, I agree. By establishing degrees of "obscenity", and providing wider distribution channels to less "obscene" materials, the amount of "softer porn" would increase. Perhaps film rating systems (if statutes are to use them as guidelines) which encourage a wider range of age brackets, or advisory, rather than compulsory ages, could aid in a more "normal" presentation of sex, love, and commitment. The current MPAA ratings also give very little information about content. The same rating is given "Nightmere on Elm Street" that is given to "Bachelor Party". While I might even want 15 year olds to see "Bachelor Party", I wouldn't want to see "Elm Street" myself. The advertising for these movies is better than most. At least they reflect the content of the films. In some cases, such as "Angel", what appears to be a mildly erotic film is actually an excessively violent film with little erotic content. Having worked in the industry myself, and being aware of the legalities and "nuisance" issues involved, it is interesting to note that ratings had a very important impact on distribution channels. >> History is full of examples, not of hard censorship, but of the polarizing >> effect of censorship. > >True, because the censorship was broad and rarely included the balancing >third requirement of the *Miller* standard, nor the objective second >requirement. I think that by making these a well-understood part of the >law the abuses of personal offensensitivity can be avoided, and evidently >the courst think so, too. > >> Unfortunately, local prosecutions served as a method of "harrassment" which >> resulted in the loss of the "moderate" literature which could not be marketed >> in general markets, but could not compete in "adult-only" bookstores. > >Where lower courts have respected this, and made it >clear to prosecutors that they will observe the judgement of the higher courts, >there is less margin for abuse. The lower courts, however support the "Adult" vs. "Minor" distinctions, with no sort of intermediate class. In some states, a person under 21 is considered a "minor". The irony here is that the most lucrative "soft porn" markets are in the 14-21 age brackets. Look at the types of porn, and their target audiences. These target audiences are the age groups most interested in this type of material, rather than a factor of advertizing targets. Most sexually descriptive materials are targeted slightly above their target audience. "Unporn". I almost forgot about this category. This is material where women or men are shown, not nude, but in situations that could be arousing to a young people just becoming aware of sexuality. Pantyhose wrappers, clothing catalogues, bathing suits, underwear, shoe ads, almost any material showing reasonably attractive people in poses or with facial expressions that are attractive. Even Barbie Dolls, cartoons, or Comic books. Children as young as age 5, to as old as age 12, may find even this material sexually arousing. In fact, this material is most likely to influence sexual preferences in the future. My son has had a thing for women's shoes since he was two years old. He couldn't talk before then. "Marshmellow porn" (my term for things like "Teen Beat", "True Romances", and personalities like Madonna, Prince, and Boy George", is a very large market in the 13-15 bracket. This is typically things like sexually suggestive "street suitable" attire, bikinis, leg and occaisional breast. Some sexually suggestive situations. This could be expanded to include lingerie, cheesecake, and "strip tease". In films, the amount of this content is less than 1% of the movie. This 1% could be expanded to as much as 10% or more. The same is true of printed material. Soft porn, such as Playboy, Playgirl, Cosmopolitan, and New Look, is more popular with the 15-17 group. Here, more nudity, lingerie, and fetish material is mixed in with the "fluff". Characters actually have sex, but seduction, birth control, and emotional factors are not well emphasised. In the bulk of the material couples are not often shown, or are shown in "intimate" but not "explicit" sexual situations. Some areas restrict sales of this material through "nuisance laws", designed to make informed purchases impossible or inconvenient. Mild porn, such as Hustler, Leg Show, Variations, and Pillow Talk begin to discuss "kinks" like oral sex, fetishes, fantasies, gentle bondage, group sex, and occaisionally anal sex. This is most popular (when available) among the college group, 18-21 years. Birth control and "safe sex" are seldom, if ever discussed. It is assumed that the reader understands these things. Stores which carry this type of material seldom advertize it. Most "general merchandise" stores don't even run the risk. General porn, films especially, contain episode after episode of oral and vaginal sex, fully naked partners, and usually one or two minutes of something unusual, either anal sex, fashion, or gentle bondage. "Sensations", for example, has a woman tied up with ribbon (several of which break during the scene). Adult soft porn, such as Spikes, Vibrations, and others focus on fetishes directly. Women are often shown with props such as paddles, riding crops, and/or whips of various types. Corsetry, high heels, stockings, garter belts, leather, and other "exotic fashions" are also featured, usually in combination with either dominant or submissive female themes. Restraints, are usually silk ties, stockings, or soft rope in soft porn, Text and/or dialogue includes "rules of the game" for those who wish to experiment with bondage. This is popular in the 25-30 bracket. There is also the "young girl" market, featuring shaved pubic regions, pony tails or pig tails, bobby socks, saddle shoes, and other "young look" fashions. This, strangely enough, is popular in the 30-50 market. This group often includes "spanking" themes as well. Hard Core, such as "Reflections", features detailed descriptions and pictorials of painful acts for sexual pleasure. Costumes include rubber and leather. Restraints are usually leather or metal cuffs, attached to chains. Settings are often dungeons. Models range in age up to 60 years old. "Mistress Antoinette", publisher and model of several such publications is over 60 years old. This is popular in the 30-70 age bracket. Films in the "hard core bondage" market are often simply films a dominatrix takes of her clients, often filmed by another dominatrix. In many cases, the victim is set free of all restraints, put in different restraints, and so on. Often the victims are males with enough strength to break chains (some victims do), put into one helpless situation after another. Finally, we have the "ultra-porn". This material includes actual rape, torture, and even death (actual or simulated) of boundage victims. In many cases, the model is told the film will include some "gentle bondage", and is then bound in hard gear. The bondage often causes pain which is in no way sexual or desired. Little fashion is shown, because the victim would not hold still for it. Beatings involving even 2x4's are included. Rope burns, blood, and expressions of sheer terror on the victims face are common. Seldom is the victim shown "free" after the ordeal. Although it is available, it is extremely uncommon to find material of this sort, even in adult bookstores. One of the best known, "Bondage Classics", was made over 20 years ago. The proceeds from this film do go to the victims. I have never seen pedophile material, nor do I wish to. It is not even available in Adult stores. Appearantly, there is an underground black market. I couldn't tell you anything about it. I simply don't know anything. Transvestite and transexual themes are usually only available at "Adult" stores. They range from very soft, to very hard. The same is true with Gay and Lesbian materials. Loosening of restrictions may be appropriate. One, F.M.I., depicts female impersonators without showing genitalia. In some cases, where both male and female models are shown, it is hard to tell which is which. The fashions look more like something out of Vogue magazine. Women and couples in adult bookstores tend to prefer the various bondage/dominance themes. With women slightly ahead of men in terms of age groups making the transition from soft adult porn to hard porn. Women who patronize adult bookstores often spend as much time looking at the restraints as they do looking at the magazines. It is important to note that Adult store patrons represent a small segment of the population. It would not be safe to say *most* women are into bondage :-). Adult bookstores do little to inform customers as to which material is moderate and which is "hard core". The covers provide little informaton, and the contents are sealed in plastic wrappers. Most of my exposure to "hard core", and "ultra-hard core" has been because of this. Unfortunately, most Adult stores have a "no refund" policy. They also have a "no browsing" policy. >Does this mean that we should discard all law? No. It means we should have sensible guidelines which match appropriate material to appropriate ages. Notice that the 15-21 market is often only available to people over 21, depending on the state. It means that Adult stores should not have "no refund, no browsing" policies, or the less offensive material should be marketable in areas where shoplifting is less common. I know of a few stores in Colorado, located in the suburbs, where browsing is allowed (for a nominal admission fee of 25 cents). There was much less "hard-core" and almost no "ultra-hard-core" material. >Or does it mean that we should attempt >to report abuses through the Press and to elect just and fairminded officials? In the cases of ultra-hard core, you could even encourage laws that would allow the victim to come forward, using the film as supporting evidence, and allow subpoena of all roughs, rejects, and cutting room extracts. You could even encourage prosecutors to find the models of such films to determine if they were in fact non-consenting adults. >> Unfortunately "Miller" implies that most material cannot be banned entirely, >> while the "regulation" and "restriction" laws prevent "moderate" publications >> from competing. > >The court has also drastically limited the nature of these laws. Essentially, >there is nothing to prohibit material (not legally obscene) from being sold in >convenience stores if it is displayed in ``blinder racks'' covering the lower >2/3 of the cover, or if a number of other remedies against accidental exposure >to minors is taken, unless zoning laws explicitly limit the area in which >such things may be sold. Would you buy a book, a magazine, a can of food, or a car without knowing what you were about to buy. There are those who do so. This actually makes the problem worse. After a few attempts a purchasing material which does not prove to be worth the money, the frustrated customer is often tempted to patronize more exotic retailers. Though he/she might find something that appeals, the combination with other factors such as dominance or whatever, may either offend, or arouse, causing even more complex fantisies to evolve. >I suspect that incidental sales of a few publications >that do not make the convenience store into an ``adult materials'' store would >not (and could not) make the convenience store subject to the same restrictions >as an ``adults only'' store. Much of this is political. A friend of a friend on city council might be able to sell adult soft porn, while a franchise owner might not be able to sell even very soft porn. >The Court has also held that zoning regulations and display-limiting provisions >may not be used to limit the rights of people to do business: you cannot limit >distribution to ``selected downtown areas'' and then only select 1 downtown >block in 15 square miles of city! You can limit the area somewhat, though, >just as you can limit where large department stores may be built, and you >can also prevent clustering by requiring a minimum distance between such >establishments. However suburbs are not required to allow such places if there are stores downtown. In moderate sized cities, trade may be restricted to the core city. >I also read CitR in ... 10th, I think. What the heck. But there is a >world of difference between that and LCL. As to a deeper interest in >reading ... well, I found LCL a boring and unrewarding book... I found "Fanny Hill" a little boring too, at age 23, but at age 15, it would have been delightful reading. A person's intersts get more sophisticated with age. Conversely, I found "Spikes" to be revolting at 20, but exciting at 28. When the novelty of sex wore off with marriage, diversions added just the right "spice", for both of us. >Do you think that it would be appropriate for HS libraries to have copies of >Playboy? Hustler? Some remedial reading programs do use these materials on a regular basis. They also use Cosmopolitan, Playgirl, and True Romance to motivate young women. Pretty pictures are less than 1% of the magazines, sugar coating to make the medicine easier to swallow. :-). >Neither the R nor the X ratings carry any force of law whatsoever; they are >private ratings. Sorry, many local and state governments do provide criminal penalties for admitting people under 16 or 17 to "R" rated movies, and admitting people under 18 or 21 to "XXX" rated movies. >As far as making creative decisions, see the remark by >E.B.White above. I deleted it, but read it. There is a big difference between the author, the publisher or producer, and the distributor. An author should write for himself. But the producer/publisher has to worry about investors, earnings reports, and profits. The distributor has to worry about "dead inventory". Even in adult bookstores, there are lots of "bargain packs", mostly containing material not "hot" enough for regular sales. >As far as the ``chilling effect'', the limits of the *Miller* >decision upon laws and prosecution *do* need to be publicized, and we do need >to educate people that the notion of legal obscenity is designed to reflect >the minimum decency standards of the people as a whole, and not anyone's idea >of morality, and that those standards can only be justified in the *absence* of >real scientific, literary, political, etc, reasons to the contrary. The notion of legal obscenity has to be expanded. Currently selling legal obscenity to minors is illegal in some states and localities. When "sale to minors" means selling Variations to 5 year old kids, I agree. When it means a person is old enough to have sex, but not old enough to read about it, that's wrong. In Colorado, the age of consent is 15, but to watch Porkys you must be 17, and to buy even Playboy, you must be 18. >> There is a fine line between the vigilante who will not buy a magazine he >> considers obscene and the attempts of a vigilante group to prevent others >> from purchasing that magazine. > >The first is not a vigilante. Neither is the second if he uses such legal >methods as legal and peaceful picketting and boycotting. > from Mole End Mark Terribile Legally, this is true. When intimidation tactics are used, as was the case with 7-11, it is hard to call it ethical behavior. There have been several forms of "Legal Harassment" of both stores and patrons by organized groups. The group that took down liscence plates and sent notes to the owner's home, employer, and minister. The group that took the names of patrons and posted them on the bulletin boards of several churches, for purposes of boycott, harassment, sale refusal, employement descrimination, etc.. Currently, respect for sexual preferences, be they "strict morality", or "very kinky", is not a principle of our society. Most people believe that the bedroom is a private place, but do not believe that books, film, or even preferrences expressed outside the bedroom are equally sacred. Perhaps, in the "ideal society", the "kinks" could express their preferences as openly as the "moralists" express theirs. It might even lead to stronger marriages if "submissives" could meet "dominants", and people could let word of mouth attract others whose interests and preferences are complimentary with their own. There is nothing wrong with having a strict moral code, but if repression of expression of contrary preferences allows a person with a strict moral code to marry a person with a "kinky" preferences, problems are quite likely to develop. Look at the way the "Gay movement" has enabled gays to meet other gays. Very seldom are heterosexuals approached, because they know who is homosexual. If a man enjoys "fashion" (women who dress in erotic lingerie), it tells a girl who is interested in him what "bait" to use. If a woman likes submissive men, the submissive ones will be literally begging for a date :-), while the dominants will walk off to look for submissive women. These are certainly not the only factors in a relationship, be it a "one night stand", or marriage. They are important factors that should be --discussed-- before making long term commitments, rather than --discovered-- weeks or even years after the honeymoon. Pornography may or may not "cause" other sexual crimes. If, however, if it enables one to express verbally, in a non-threatening situation, his own preferences, before acting on them with an unwilling partner, it may be a good thing that porn is available. I am not advocating that everyone should go down to the porno shop to discover their kink. Just that those who have kinks (not everybody does), not "surprise" their partners. Decieving a partner about these preferences in the vain hope that they can be "turned around", is the most obscene form of deception. Rex B.