Brooke Magnanti (aka Belle de Jour) recently published a though provoking post over at her blog ‘The Sex Myth‘. It was triggered by the trial of Michael Peacock for violating the obscene publications act. He’s a UK based male escort who distributed gay pornography featuring watersports, fisting and a various BDSM activities. Thankfully he was found not guilty, which is likely to provoke a rethink on what is and isn’t legal to publish in the UK.
It is of course good news that Britain might relax its ridiculous obscenity laws. It has lagged behind both Europe and the United States when it comes to publishing explicit sexual material. I always find it ironic that the country founded by radical Puritans escaping England ended up with far more liberal obscenity laws than England itself. It also makes me happy to think that a randomly selected jury could overcome their natural impulse of ‘Ugh! That’s fucking weird!” and return a verdict of not-guilty. I wonder if the prevalence of the internet, with all it’s multifaceted and easily accessible media, has something to do with that. Twenty years ago you’d have had to go to considerably effort to see anything more than soft core pornography. Now any random friend can email you a link to two girls one cup.
While the not-guilty verdict was welcome, there were a couple of observations about the coverage of the case that were less positive. The first was from Quiet Riot Girl on the media coverage in the Guardian of the case. For those that don’t know it, the Guardian is the largest left-of-center newspaper in the UK. Quiet Riot Girl correctly pointed out that the paper normally takes a very puritanical line on porn, with contributors like Julie Bindel arguing for much stronger censorship and legislation against sex workers (for example idiotic articles like this or like this). In this case it trumpeted the result as a victory for sexual freedom. So obviously porn is degrading when it features any women, but liberating when it features only men. I like the Guardian, I read it most days, but that’s a spectacularly patronizing and inconsistent point of view.
The other observation was from Brooke herself, and picked up on something that always been a bugbear of mine.
Is there an unwritten rule that when the topic is sex, even supportive and liberal commentators who identify as sex-positive must make it clear exactly where in this case their personal kinky line has been crossed? I lost count of the number of times either on blogs or on Twitter I read some variation of “Of course, I don’t go in for these disgusting practices at all, but I fully support…” etc.
What’s the problem here, you might ask? That of solidarity. You wouldn’t begin a discussion on same-sex marriage with the sentence, “Of course, I am disgusted at the thought of being attracted to the same sex, but I fully support…”, would you? You wouldn’t start an article about trans people with “I am appalled at the idea of changing your born sex, but I fully support…” and so on.
……
Sexuality is not a hierarchy of extremity, with fisting, urine, and blood at its apex. Sexuality is not a linear progression from missionary-position, procreative, within-marriage, monogamous mating at one end and goatse at the other.
Brooke Magnanti
I completely understand why people do this when it comes to porn. They’re seeking the intellectual higher ground. They don’t want people to think the material might excite them, because that would appear to weaken their argument. Their motives can no longer be trusted because their baser instincts have been aroused. Better to be a champion of intellectual freedom than a horny person looking for something to get off on.
However, as Brooke argues, sexual acts aren’t graded on some linear curve. The idea of a sexual line in the sand makes no sense. Either you’re in favor of sexual freedom and adults retaining their own power of consent, or you’re not. It shouldn’t be necessary to layout or justify your own personal sexual kinks in order to defend freedom of speech. The pressure should always be on the people trying to censor a particular point of view. Not on the people who enjoy it and want to share their sexual preferences with others. We shouldn’t be simultaneously defending someone while ghettoizing their sexuality.
For an illustrative image I thought I’d run with the fisting theme, since that was apparently one of the triggers for the original prosecution. Here’s a rather attractive young lady wearing some decorative pearls and a slightly more functional latex glove.
I found this on the Women Supremacy tumblr. It’s originally from the Tyrannized site.
Hi Paltego:
I admit I am surprised to hear that Britain lags behind the United States on this issue. We have very puritanical folk here who would be more than happy to change that and would certainly give it their best effort if they got a chance! Love the fisting shot! It certainly pulls my triggers but only in a positive way! 🙂
Hi hmp,
Britain broadcast television tends to be more adventurous and edgy than the very safe US networks (although not as open as mainland Europe). But other media (Video/Magazines/etc.) lag behind both the US and Europe. Britain shares the puritanical side with the US but lacks the strong freedom of speech ethos that also exists here. Through the 70’s to the late 90’s it was very difficult to legally acquire hardcore pornography in the UK. Only in the last decade or so have they introduced a more liberal approach. And even then (as this prosecution shows) it’s still very patchy and illogical.
Some states in the US are definitely on the regressive side, but in general I’d say if you stick to the blue ones, it’s definitely a lot better than England!
-paltego
hi
Thanks for linking to my post. I like the photo too. I think some people have forgotten about the actual context this is in, and the kind of imagery we have been fighting to keep legal.
I actually do agree with Brooke Magnanti on the whole. I made some comments though, about it, when it was posted on the Freedom in a Puritan Age blog. And they didn’t publish my comments. I was upset because I thought we were all supposed to be ‘allies’ in this quest for freedom.
Best wishes
QRG
Hi QRG,
No problem for the link. Thanks for writing an interesting and thoughtful post. The Guardian coverage around this area always drives me nuts, so it was good to see your take on it. And glad you liked the photo. I always to add a little eye candy to anything I write 🙂
Shame they didn’t publish your comments, but at least they published the one comment with the link in it. That was how I got to your post in the first place.
-paltego