tinyjo: (Default)
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?

Date: June 3rd, 2002 08:03 am (UTC)From: [identity profile] 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").

Profile

tinyjo: (Default)
Emptied of expectation. Relax.

June 2020

S M T W T F S
 1 23456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated November 24th, 2025 05:16 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit