Recently Annette wrote on this subject: erotica-versus-pornography erotica-versus-pornography Erotic content in art as been around as long as art, the question is when does it become pornography? What was once constituted extreme pornography is viewed differently now..
This article: Muggeridge, Deighton from 1965, is a discussion between Malcolm Muggeridge and Len Deighton. It gives some idea how perceptions have changed in 45 years. At the time, television was being subject to criticism for some of the material that was being shown. Back then, in Britain, there were just 3 TV channels, and tightly controlled. Of course, erotic material had always been available, but at a price. What was happening in 1965 was that it was leaving 'gentlemen's club' exclusivity and becoming generally available.
Muggeridge's attitude to pornography is traditionalist, a cold showers and abstinence point of view. Muggeridge sees porn as an evil in itself and he doesn't even consider more modern notion that porn may induce some users into criminal behaviour. In fact, in one remarkable statement he suggests that actual rape might be more acceptable than porn
In the 1960s the issue was about who has access. If erotic material is kept as the preserve of the wealthy you can ignore it. Once you make it available to everyone, that becomes impossible. And so, in 1965, or so, such figures as Lord Longford and Mary Whitehouse achieved much self publicity by campaigning against what they claimed was pornography on broadcast television.
Every new imaging technology has produced new opportunities to produce pornography, photography, movies, video tape etc. The internet has done that and generated vast new markets. The technology is the media and it can advertise and sell direct. The internet might have been designed for delivering porn.
From a libertarian standpoint, is pornography actually doing any harm? (If we discount the unproven assertions that porn may encourage criminal activity.) Well, see: Porn:worse than crack? Mary Anne Layden, co-director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Therapy, called porn the "most concerning thing to psychological health that I know of existing today. The internet is a perfect drug delivery system because you are anonymous, aroused and have role models for these behaviours," Layden said. "To have a drug pumped into your house 24/7, free, and children know how to use it better than grown-ups -- it's a perfect delivery system if we want to have a whole generation of young addicts who will never have the drug out of their mind."
If Mary Layden is to be believed pornography can be an addictive. In such matters it might be best to play safe and limit access. Now society doesn't generally facilitate addictive behaviour does it? But there are types of behaviour, which can be addictive, and legal: booze, gambling, cigarettes. All of these are supported by business lobby groups who rationalise that they are protecting the freedom of the individual by making such material available.
Internet porn could be controlled, but free access is the default condition. As porn was, effectively, the material that launched the internet, this is not surprising. It is possible for local service providers to block porn as a default, denying access to minors. They could, on request, then permit use to adults. But local internet service providers are reluctant to promote such an option, they'd lose money - one can imagine hubby struggling to explain to the missus why he wanted to enable the porn switch. It would raise a few interesting questions in many households.
It's also been suggested that some governments are encouraging a perception of the internet as primarily a porn gateway. Those countries that are soft on file copying might just be trying to distract potential dissidents from exploring the potential of the internet for communications and organised dissent. Which would make porn the new opium of the masses. As Len Deighton points out, in the article I cited at the top, the Nazis utilised porn and may have been the first to 'democracise' it.
Whatever the case, there's money in porn, huge amounts of it. It is claimed to be a $10billion dollar business. Given that, don't expect to see too many restrictions on internet porn any time soon.
This article: Muggeridge, Deighton from 1965, is a discussion between Malcolm Muggeridge and Len Deighton. It gives some idea how perceptions have changed in 45 years. At the time, television was being subject to criticism for some of the material that was being shown. Back then, in Britain, there were just 3 TV channels, and tightly controlled. Of course, erotic material had always been available, but at a price. What was happening in 1965 was that it was leaving 'gentlemen's club' exclusivity and becoming generally available.
Muggeridge's attitude to pornography is traditionalist, a cold showers and abstinence point of view. Muggeridge sees porn as an evil in itself and he doesn't even consider more modern notion that porn may induce some users into criminal behaviour. In fact, in one remarkable statement he suggests that actual rape might be more acceptable than porn
In the 1960s the issue was about who has access. If erotic material is kept as the preserve of the wealthy you can ignore it. Once you make it available to everyone, that becomes impossible. And so, in 1965, or so, such figures as Lord Longford and Mary Whitehouse achieved much self publicity by campaigning against what they claimed was pornography on broadcast television.
Every new imaging technology has produced new opportunities to produce pornography, photography, movies, video tape etc. The internet has done that and generated vast new markets. The technology is the media and it can advertise and sell direct. The internet might have been designed for delivering porn.
From a libertarian standpoint, is pornography actually doing any harm? (If we discount the unproven assertions that porn may encourage criminal activity.) Well, see: Porn:worse than crack? Mary Anne Layden, co-director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Therapy, called porn the "most concerning thing to psychological health that I know of existing today. The internet is a perfect drug delivery system because you are anonymous, aroused and have role models for these behaviours," Layden said. "To have a drug pumped into your house 24/7, free, and children know how to use it better than grown-ups -- it's a perfect delivery system if we want to have a whole generation of young addicts who will never have the drug out of their mind."
If Mary Layden is to be believed pornography can be an addictive. In such matters it might be best to play safe and limit access. Now society doesn't generally facilitate addictive behaviour does it? But there are types of behaviour, which can be addictive, and legal: booze, gambling, cigarettes. All of these are supported by business lobby groups who rationalise that they are protecting the freedom of the individual by making such material available.
Internet porn could be controlled, but free access is the default condition. As porn was, effectively, the material that launched the internet, this is not surprising. It is possible for local service providers to block porn as a default, denying access to minors. They could, on request, then permit use to adults. But local internet service providers are reluctant to promote such an option, they'd lose money - one can imagine hubby struggling to explain to the missus why he wanted to enable the porn switch. It would raise a few interesting questions in many households.
It's also been suggested that some governments are encouraging a perception of the internet as primarily a porn gateway. Those countries that are soft on file copying might just be trying to distract potential dissidents from exploring the potential of the internet for communications and organised dissent. Which would make porn the new opium of the masses. As Len Deighton points out, in the article I cited at the top, the Nazis utilised porn and may have been the first to 'democracise' it.
Whatever the case, there's money in porn, huge amounts of it. It is claimed to be a $10billion dollar business. Given that, don't expect to see too many restrictions on internet porn any time soon.
I have heard from various sources that every new innovation on the internet was first developed by those wishing to sell pornography and trying to make it more openly available.
ReplyDeleteI have a friend who is a pin-up artist. She does humourous takes on pin-ups sometimes and sometimes straight pin-ups. One summer she gave me kind of a history of the pin-up. It was interesting. Most of the pin-ups through the twentieth century were pretty tame by today's standards in regards to girlie pictures. My friend actually takes commissions from women who want such pin-ups for their guys. Then somewhere in the late 1950's and early 1960's the pin-ups took a shift and more skin was showing. I think this might be about the time that you are talking about taking porn and making it available to everyone. I am wondering if this is an accurate perception and also what societal shifts happened then. Also when did Hugh Heffner and the Bunnies start?
Hmmm... I think I need to think on this more.
Here is an interesting angle on porn addiction that I hadn't thought of:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/apr/07/women-addicted-internet-pornography