Pornography

[tinyjo]

Once again, they're talking about Richard Desmonds donation to the Labour Party and I notice that there seems to be an assumption that pornography is a bad thing. Now I am not at all sure about this. I recognize that it can be exploitative but it isn't necessarily. Nor is it necessarily unhealthy - I tend to think of it as an aid to fantisizing for the unimaginative. Its not illegal so why should we not accept this donation as just another one from a business man?

Comments

[jinty]

Comics pornography (which I know is not what this guy deals in, but to take the topic a bit wider and indeed closer to home) is surely about as unexploitative as you can get.

Obviously there is still the argument that it may objectify the person focussed on sexually (whether female or male, I guess) but almost by definition, there is not a(ny need for) a real, solid subject who is exploited in real life. You may argue that R. Crumb's sexual comics work (much of which isn't porn -- ie erotic -- so much as sexually explicit) is degrading, and portrays a negative image of women and therefore puts back the cause of seeing women as people; but I don't think you can argue that women were harmed or exploited in the making of it. Unless we hear otherwise from Aline Kominski-Crumb, and one would think she would have told us by now (or did she, and I missed it?).

And stuff like Omaha, or Xxxenophile, which pretty much have to be the fruit of the author's fevered imagination and little else (and which is very sex-positive, to boot) is about as immune to counter-argument as anything I can think of. Not that it stops some people being up in arms about such stuff, of course...

I'm slightly cross because yesterday I bought Vol 3 of Dirty Stories, published by Fantagraphics' Eros line. By dirty stories, they really just seem to mean gross stories and pictures, not decent quality porn. I seem to recall that this was Dylan Horrocks' disappointment with vol 1 (which I also bought -- his story is the best one in it). At any rate, in his Comics Journal article, he aspires to writing & drawing good, lusty porn that actually turns you on. Bravo, I say.

[jinty]

And stuff like Omaha, or Xxxenophile, which pretty much have to be the fruit of the author's fevered imagination and little else (and which is very sex-positive, to boot) is about as immune to counter-argument as anything I can think of.
Of course, this same argument works for much erotic prose fiction. Duh.

[andypop.livejournal.com]

Instant essay! Jo's post sure pushed your buttons (Sid James laugh).

You might even say they went "sponngg" (or was it "spunngg"? One of you SF experts is sure to know...)

[jinty]

spungg. And no, they didn't. Thank you for that timely image nevertheless!

Surprised it didn't push your buttons too & give instant essay -- but I gues you have other things to think about, like work. I was just watching old Buffy.

Re:

[andypop.livejournal.com]

I was going to make a more detailed comment, but you'd beat me to it!

[andypop.livejournal.com]

They're just looking for another reason to slag off the New Labour...

I don't care what he publishes, I care that he & others are allowed to donate at all. It's time political parties stopped being funded this way...

[jinty]

??? How else are they to be funded? Private millionaires that are also MPs? Dipping into the public purse? Winning the lottery? Surely it's just a larger-scale version of people paying their memberships to the party of their choice. So long as there's enough policing of proper disclosure, any clash of interests, etc...

Re:

[andypop.livejournal.com]

There is actually discussion of public funding for political parties going on currently - even in the States, I gather. But what do they need all this money for anyway? Give 'em five minutes on telly to tell us to vote for them, supply them with a small office and a few pencils and they should be happy with that, the bastards. Let them survive on memberships!!!

Seriously, the donation system is just inevitably going to lead to corruption. Let them eat breadcrumbs.

[sparkymark.livejournal.com]

I'd rather take money off someone dodgy (gaining money and depriving someone dodgy of money) than just gaining money. Now if Labour was *subsidising* pornographers that would be different.

Some of the outrage over Desmonds seemed to be about the "specialist" nature of his titles (ethnic and age groups) rather than anything rational. (lik. one critics negative review of the "Crash" film for portraying "sex with cripples").