Wow, a post under the topic of 'sex' that actually talks about something related to sex!...

...instead of just featuring hot boys and girls!

And before I begin, I humbly apologise for another post that should have been written 2-3 weeks ago. This soldier had to be transferred to the Warragul barracks for further nursing training, and between getting up at 0600 hours and returning to base at 1830 hours, there was precious little blogging time. But enough of that.

A while ago, the police raided several houses and computers, allegedly featuring Victorian-produced porn. This, as it turns turns out, is illegal. My calm and rational response is "WTF??!!!" Just HOW is it that in the 21st century, it is illegal to to produce consensual porn? These are the sorts of laws I would expect in theocratic Iran, or theocratic Iran-lite US states such as Alabama.

OK, there are allegations that that one of the models was under 18 years, and yes, I entirely agree that such allegations should be pursued. However, that doesn't change the fact that producing porn in Victoria is illegal. What possible justification could there be for such a nannying, self-righteous, authoritarian, "C'mon, let's just tell everybody what they can and can't do even though nobody is being hurt and it's entirely consensual" law to exist? Actually, there are several justifications.

1. It's obscene and evil and shouldn't exist.
- I won't even bother.

2. For the children.
- This is more of a thin veil for reason 1. Ironically, conservatives, the ones who are usually railing for 'parents' rights' and accusing Lefties of being irresponsible parents, see no hypocrisy in asking the state to prevent their children from viewing porn. I say that it is the sole responsibility of the parents to prevent their children from viewing it, and nobody else.

3. It objectifies, exploits and degrades women.
- This is the most oft-cited reason against all porn-that it objectifies and exploits women. Fundamentally, I disagree, but I do admit it is a significantly more complex issue than reasons 1 and 2. First, 'objectification.' I agree that porn can, and does, objectify women*, however I see the objectification more on the part of those who view it. Somebody who watches a movie and sees nothing but sluts and whores hardly has a positive image of women in general to begin with.
- Secondly, exploitation. 'Exploitation' to me implies that full, informed consent has not been given-ie, the models are unable to forsee the consequences of their actions. I think that many, if not all, sex workers would be highly offended at the notion that they have the intelligence and emotional maturity of a six year old, unable to give proper consent. I also find it rather odd that only women are targeted here. Nobody see anything wrong in gay porn; those models aren't being exploited at all, apparently. To me, this echoes the double-standard outlined before; that men are more mature then women and don't need to worry about exploitation. There is also the argument that any form of sex work can lead to problems in the future of women being denied employment etc due to their work histories. I agree that this is a problem, but I feel this is a lingering hatred of womens' sexualities, which is hardly a reason to ban sex work.
- Finally, degrading. This is difficult, as most porn does degrade women (the number of times 'slut' appears in those sites probably outnumbers the number of dollars in Bill Gates' bank account). However, porn, and indeed all sex work, is not inherently degrading of women. Having scoped out Abby Winters (and several other sites, many courtesy of Sarah), it didn't appear degrading in the slightest.

And then, of course, there's the obvious counter; it should not be illegal to produce and sell adult material if no minors are involved and it is entirely consensual.

Funnily enough, the first two reasons were used to support anti-gay laws.

Topic cross-posted here and here.

*This post would be a heck of a lot easier if I watched more of it. Damn effective imagination.