Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mat From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,soc.singles Subject: Re: Re: Grey Porn (Long) Message-ID: <1607@mtx5a.UUCP> Date: Sun, 12-Oct-86 22:10:28 EDT Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1607 Posted: Sun Oct 12 22:10:28 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 14-Oct-86 06:46:25 EDT References: <391@cci632.UUCP> <1577@mtx5a.UUCP> <434@cci632.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801. Lines: 436 Xref: watmath talk.politics.misc:637 net.legal:5371 soc.singles:513 > >> >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. This was indeed the ``offensensitive'' abuse that *Roth* was meant to correct. As a practical matter, however, a great deal of other material, justified by a cheap moral or a dubious claim of educational value, was protected under the *Roth* decision. > >> >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. *Miller vs. State of California* states that the material in question is legally obscene if *all* three of these criteria are met: 1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest [in sex -- the American Heritage Dictionary has three definitions of ``prurient'', all of which involved an *obsessive* interest in sex, not just a normal one] 2. The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct speifically defined by the applicable State or Federal law. 3. The word, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. It is true that the decision speaks of ``value'' rather than ``merit'' -- it would be possible, I suppose, for a work without literary merit to have literary value, though I've got only the vaguest notion of how. > >> 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". > > ... > ... > If you were to attempt to purchase "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. A question: is there an ``open code'' language that regular purchasers of this material understand? Fact is, if your goal is simple nudes or women (or men) in skimpy clothing, you can busy *some* of that mail-order from Barnes and Noble! The heavy-duty outlets (analagous perhaps to places licensed to sell hard liquor) may not be where you want to go. > ... > The only current postal restriction I know of is unsolicited mailing of > sexually explicit materials. Currently, yes. In fact, abuse of postal regulation may have been the worst censorship abuse of the first half of this century. An MD who gave factual answers to handwritten questions about contraception in first class mail could be thrown in jail -- and many were. I've forgotten the name of the postal inspector, but I don't have very kind thoughts toward him. He actually set up and enticed MDs to do this. Today, of course, there would be an entrapment defense, and the MD would clearly be protected by various SC decisions, *Miller* being one of them. > >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 problem is that the existing channels (perhaps including the mainstream ``men's magazines'') are wound up with organized crime. Legalizing things would not get organized crime out of them -- witness the scandals in the cement and concrete industry in NYC, witness the problems in the waste disposal industries at every level, witness the frequent claims of La Cosa Nostra involvement in the entertainment industry ... Putting more of the industry under public scrutiny would help, of course. If you don't feel that buying or renting films or tapes out of the trunk of a car in a driveway somewhere is normal, you'll be more inclined to make purchases from a store which can be somewhat more readily policed. Even here, however, law enforcement officers testify that ``adult'' establishments often keep two sets of books. > >> ... 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 [*Miller*], and made it clear ... that > >they [uphold] 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. Does the fact that materials are attractive to adolescents mean that it should be sold to them? If some sort of grading system, with a reliable type of parental approval could be worked out ... ``Y'know Jim, your son Bob came in here last week and asked for a copy of Playboy.'' ``Didja' give it to him?'' ``Naw ... I didn't think I oughta' '' ``He's seventeen years old now. I guess if he wants to read that stuff, he's old enough.'' ``Then it's OK?'' ``Yeah. Say, how much do I owe you ...'' > "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. This actually disturbs me more than the ``airbrushed centerfolds'', since it carries a powerful sexual message that hits everyone. Adults can get a kick out of some lingerie ads, too. > "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". ... This I would classify with the first group -- it carries a very strong sexual message, and it is directed in this case toward people who are not sexually (and emotionally) mature. It wouldn't concern me if it were not so all-pervasive. The Madonna and Boy George personalities bother me more than the movies. In fact, I am more concerned about the pervasive nature than about the occasional breast or back shot. But here we are drifing into individual values, and while they may be a good topic, we *were* talking about effects of violent or degrading materials and how they might be examined. Let's be sure (as several people have said to me) that we keep the topics straight. > 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. Actually, the ``nuisance'' laws are generally designed to keep this material away from the 15-17 year olds. Insofar as Playboy, Cosmo, etc, are involved, there is some information provided by the editorial policies of the publications. Nothing in most of the statutes prohibits a copy from being kept behind the counter for examination by an adult who might want to buy (in the case of ``shrink-wrap'' concealment) or prevents an adult from taking a copy out of the ``blinder rack'' that covers the ``lower 2/3'' of the cover. > ... > 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. I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask if this may be satisfying (redirecting) a drive that some fathers (or people who wished they were fathers) feel, and that violates the incest taboo. If so, it suggests that the normal bonds of affection within a family (real or fantasized) may not have developed enough to block the sex drive between father and daughter. I've read that this may be a problem either when the person hasn't developed these bonds with his child *or* never developed the needed bonds *with his parents*. If so, it echoes the conclusion of Commissioner Tilton-Durfee's ``dissenting'' statement: It occurred to me, over and over again, that the real issue might be the effects of American family life on the consumtion of pornography, rather than the reverse. It also echoes the statement of Commissioner Ritter in which he says that the Commission ``ran for the hills'' in not examining the ethical and moral consequences of materials which show sex outside of the context of a loving marital relationship. (Understand that Bruce Ritter is not unbiased: as a Fransiscan priest, he has certain moral values. But before writing him off, examine what he *says*): ``..Finding that sexual privacy is pancultural, that it has been a stable feature of western civilization for as long as we have knowledge, and that it currently remains highly valued by Americans in their attitudes, practices, and laws, doesn not ineluctably require a finding that the taboo of sexual privacy ought to *continue* to be held in such high esteem. But these findings ... are nevertheless crucial in assessing where the *burden* of proof ought to rest. In all fairness ... it should rest on those seeking to sweep away the taboo. Does current, photographic ponography offend that taboo? And if so, what is the harm? ... The answer to the first question is obvious ... Nothing is left for the viewer to imagine; no attempt is made to conceal either the face or the genitals of the performers. The consumer of the ``standard'' pornography in the 1980s, unlike the consumers of the materials generally available at the time of the 1970 Commission Report, is a full witness to the most intimate, the most private activity of another human being. > 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. The proceeds do when successful prosecutions and civil judgements can be had. How many ``underground'' films are unprosecuted, with unidentified victims? I think that most of us would agree that production of this material, and probably its distribution as well, ought to be prosecuted. We may disagree on whether it should be done via obscenity statues, assault or rape laws, or worker protection laws, or some combination of the three. > 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. Then why not listen to victims and law enforcement specialists? > ... > >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. Again, does the fact that 15-21 year olds are the only ones who wish to buy something mean that we should sell it? > 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. Ok. > >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. Let's do that. > >> 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. But blinder racks do not make it impossible to remove a magazine, only to examine *without* removing it. > >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. No agrument that this remains an abuse. This is where we need a free press. Unfortunately, local newspapers are often too subject to pressure from local officials. > >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. :-). On the other hand, the RR programs are usually supervised, and the students are probably mostly occupied with their work. > >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. Fair enough, although the ``age of consent'' is a nasty thing. Lowering the age of consent is one way to dilute the effect of `statutory rape'' laws that say that if a 17 year old and a 18 year old have sex, the 18 year old is guilty of rape. Remember that being physically able to have sex, and emotionally able to deal with the consequences of *normal, loving* sexual encounters does not necessarily mean that you are able to deal with the emotional consequences of graphic depictions of one sort or another. > >> 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.. One of the things that this indicates is that we have a clash between the values that we profess and our real values. > 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. Makes sense. Still, if I found that I were into dominance or submission, I would probably feel concerned about it, and try to understand why, and maybe change it. If I were into ``fashion'', I probably would not. Why? Because one involves fanstasies and arousal centered around things that I feel are objectionable by themselves. > 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. Is there a way to do this without the widespread viewing of material that offends the sense of decency of a large part of the population? > 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. Hard to argue ... but even here, is there a range, where one fellow might get a thrill out of ``fashion'', but be able to have loving sex with his partner without it, while another cannot enjoy *any* sex that does not involve painful bondage? -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) (mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.