« Walls Cracking | Main | Built Kerik Tough » I Want My Barely Legal Porn!08 May 2007 05:33 pm Ah, search engines. But really. My former colleague Garance Franke-Ruta had an op-ed calling for a ban on participation in pornography by people under the age of 21. As befits a man whose blog was once featured in Playboy's "Girls of the Pac Ten" issue (really!) I make the case for keeping barely legal porn legal over at Campus Progress. Comments (83)
I merely dislike Garance's Hillary love, but I detest her approach here. It's a classical 'cure far worse than the disease'. (Check your metaphor there, Matthew...) 
I second Linus's proposal. I really don't think this country needs new stupid reasons to put people in jail. Kiddie porn charges for dirty pictures of 20-year-olds? You're kidding, right? But beyond that, would this really eliminate "barely legal" porn? Wouldn't it just make a whole new category of porn (21 and 22-year-olds) "barely legal"?
MY,
"How was your blog featured in Playboy?" Yet another one of those nude blog spreads.
Of course it was featured in Playboy. The blog is HOTT. Or at least it was, back in those days. On topic -- what Matthew said. What an appalling proposal by GFR.
18-year old women aren't adults! Sorry, I'm just trying to find the principle that justifies legisltating away more freedom.
For those of you willing to exercise your freedom while you have it, this is a good site for starters: atkingdom.com
While I disagree with Garance's proposal, I don't have the intensely negative reaction to it that some other people do. I have a utilitarian attitude towards personal freedoms of every kind. Giving people the full complement of freedoms to do things that don't harm others is, for the most part, a good thing to do, because it'll increase the general happiness. It allows efficient economic transactions, self-expression, etc. But when you see that the exercise of some freedom is systematically causing a lot of suffering, you restrict it. In the economic sphere, you restrict property rights by imposing progressive taxation to pay for the social safety net, the minimum wage, OSHA regs, etc. And now we're faced with a similar case in the social sphere. Garance runs the cost-benefit analysis and comes out with her answer. Matt points out that there are less costly ways to achieve many of the same benefits -- requiring a second consent form a week after, for example. I think Matt's way is better, but Garance's general approach doesn't strike me as contemptible or anything.
Franke-Ruta's argument is so idiotic, I feel ridiculous even talking about it. If we're going to ban something, can we please stop these young women from getting more ugly tattoos? While we're at it, why not raise the minimum age for marriage to, say, 25?
I merely dislike Garance's Hillary love, but I detest her approach here. I feel exactly the opposite. Rightly or wrongly, people worry about stuff like this; certainly more people than I'd have thought. She's proposed a solution. It's a horrific solution, but it's not likely to go anywhere either. There are more minimal solutions--confirmation of consent at some set time period afterwards, etc.--with which I'd be fine. I think GFR's politics are probably a fair bit more conservative than we all assume. Conservative's probably not the right word--maybe traditional. But I don't think it's fringe lefty PC-ism motivating this.
"But when you see that the exercise of some freedom is systematically causing a lot of suffering, you restrict it." A lot of suffering? What is the total number of teens flashing on camera for commercial distribution while drunk (or not) who really regret it a week later? I think I'm on pretty firm ground in asserting less than 100 a year. I'm sure we can save more lives a year if we ban peanuts. Hey, let's ban peanuts! We could eliminate a lot of suffering.
"Garance runs the cost-benefit analysis and comes out with her answer." Her cost-benefit analysis is so out of whack that it seems a reasonable assumption that the protection of a very few 18 to 21 year old women from embarrassment is a stalking horse for an another agenda.
On the other hand, Petey, I don't see the social benefits of 18-20 porn as particularly huge. Guys will mostly do fine with 21-year-old porn. I really don't have a good estimation of the extent to which porn provides important economic opportunity to 18-20 year olds -- maybe losing that would be a bigger deal than I'm realizing -- but displacing all that to the 21+ sector doesn't sound too bad. While I disagree with Garance and I think the cost/benefit situation is (1) best with Matt's ideas (2) second best with the status quo and (3) worst with her idea, I don't really see why people got so worked up about it.
And finally, we've already eliminated the right of a couple of million military age adults to drink to save a couple of thousand annual automobile fatalities. That strikes me as almost as horrendous a cost-benefit analysis as GFR's here.
I'd just like to remind Tim and Neil that we're talking about putting people in prison, here, for taking nudie pictures of women who would be considered adults in every other aspect of life, and adults for nudie-picture purposes in every other country on earth, ever. So it's not that harmless.
"I don't really see why people got so worked up about it." Really? Given how far things are already pushed, I think it's quite understandable for folks to be very touchy about further restriction of legality in the sex 'n' drugs sphere.
Neil, your faith in the power of regulation is alarming. Do you really think the "cost" of outlawing 18-20-year-olds in porn is the lost porn? There wouldn't be any costs of enforcement, or costs to the people who are punished, or any black market that would have other undesirable effects? By your logic, the only factor to consider in whether marijuana prohibition is wise, is whether it's a good idea to smoke marijuana. That's nuts.
I'd just like to remind Tim and Neil that we're talking about putting people in prison, I'm not.
steves, I'd be very strongly against putting people in jail for this. (Enforcing this under child porn statutes would be outrageous.) But I don't think Garance actually spells out the punishments. It could be something more like what happens if your business sells beer to 18-year-olds -- fines and similar civil penalties.
Let me get this straight, so taking a nude picture of a 19 year old would be illegal but...excuse my french... fucking a 19 year old would be ok? Wonderful stuff. I can't wait till I can be old enough to where I can genuinely freak out at the sexual mores of the younger generation and produce self righteous, reactionary and illogical calls for the government to step up and impose my morality on them.
Well, then you're even farther from reality. You really think if this was outlawed The Man wouldn't be throwing people in prison for it? Anyway, say it's "just" a fine. You don't pay, you go to prison. That's the way it works. And banning the sale of beer to 18-year-olds is stupid, too. Good god, are the Republicans taking over around here?
My earlier question (to Neil) remains: in your cost/benefit discussion, you seem to be assuming that outlawing this will make it disappear. Am I reading too much into your comment?
Hmmmm...the age of consent should be 21 according to GFR? Part of the problem with America's obsession with sex is how, as a culture, we demonize it. Added demonization will only add to the problem and not solve it. And what about all the porn that is not produced in the U.S. and readily available on the www? Are we gonna force other countries to raise their age of consent to mirror ours? They will be more then willing to fill the void in the supply of "Barely Legal" porn which would be created by a U.S. prohibition. MY hit on some very good points in rebuttal to GFR's argument. The bottom line is we can't/shouldn't protect consenting adults from their own behavior. The more we, as a society, try to restrict behavior the more we make the problem worse...(see: Prohibition and also "The War On Drugs)
Let me get this straight, so taking a nude picture of a 19 year old would be illegal but...excuse my french... fucking a 19 year old would be ok? I think she worries about publication (well, "commercial publication," but I'm not sure that distinction is easy to police).
"I don't think Garance actually spells out the punishments. It could be something more like what happens if your business sells beer to 18-year-olds" If Garance wanted to raise the age of majority to 21, I'd at least have respect for the argument. But you can serve in the military at 18. You can sign binding contracts at 18. You can get married and have a baby at 18. And you can't take off your clothes for a photograph at 18? Why the hell is a photograph of nakedness so privileged? At least the ban on alcohol at 18 is supported by actuarial tables, even if immensely wrongheaded. It's pure prudery masked by other rationales. ----- OK. I think I've made my point. I'll note that part of the vehemence of my reaction comes from the fact that I generally like what GFR writes.
It's exciting to read two thoroughly unconvincing and weakly argued essays, back to back, that take opposite sides on the same issue. Shorter Franke-Ruta: 18 is not old enough. Shorter Yglesias: 18 is old enough. There is barely more to these essays than that. Matt says: On the other hand, criminalizing participation in such activity would dramatically raise the stakes involved from mild embarrassment to actual legal penalties. So don't criminalize the behavior of the underage model - just criminalize the behavior of the producers, possessors and distributors. The "too difficult to enforce argument" also seems like a red herring. No matter which age is settled upon as the legal age, it will be difficult to enforce. Thus this consideration does not weigh for or against any particular age. Equally weak is the argument that because 18 is regarded as a legally sufficient age for making certain other kinds of decisions, it should be regarded as legally sufficient for making this particular kind of decision. Why? On the other hand, Franke-Ruta offers no arguments at all to defend her particular choice of age - 21. Apparently this age is simply intuited as "just right" She argues: But a 21-year-old barrier would save a lot of young women from being manipulated into an indelible error, while burdening the world's next Joe Francis with an aptly limited supply of "talent." True enough. But a 25-year old barrier, or a 32-year old barrier, or 46-year old barrier would save even more women from making this error. So, the fact that a 21-year old barrier would save some more women from error is not, in itself, terribly compelling. Here is one alternative model to apply to this issue: Women who participate in pornography for sale or distribution are sex workers, whether they are paid or not. The problem with people like Joe Francis is that he is exploiting non-unionized, unprotected, poorly compensated, unlicensed (and often incapacitated) temp workers, and profiting handsomely from this exploitative labor market. Eligibility to work as a model for pornography, and legal hiring for pornography, should be contingent on the model's membership in a sex worker union, which would a variety of legal, health, pay scale and other occupational protections. If we moved to such a model, then we might have some hope of rationally addressing this issue within the context of existing social norms about the appropriate legal age limits for contracting one's labor. And no one would have the legal right to drive by a crowd and say "here's 100 bucks to pull up your shirt" to a bunch of young women lacking union cards.
"The problem with people like Joe Francis is that he is exploiting non-unionized, unprotected, poorly compensated, unlicensed (and often incapacitated) temp workers, and profiting handsomely from this exploitative labor market. Eligibility to work as a model for pornography, and legal hiring for pornography, should be contingent on the model's membership in a sex worker union, which would a variety of legal, health, pay scale and other occupational protections." (I don't get to agree with Dan Kervick often, so allow me to take this opportunity, if you will. Thank you for your indulgence.) What Dan Kervick said.
Dan: I'm not sure how you justifying the need for a union for sex workers. That is, what are the criteria under which we will impose a union on an industry from the outside?
What's problematic is the extreme oppressive authoritarianism of the proposal. It's funny to see lefties call Rudy authoritarian when all he did was implement some zoning as to where porn shops could operate. Here we see a proposal that is far, far more authoritarian - it's not just where porn can be sold, but which consenting adults can participate in porn - and it all comes down to a cost-benefit calculation. The hypocrisy is magnified when this proposal is juxtaposed with the left's abortion rhetoric: it's my body, how dare you regulate what I do with it, etc. God forbid we place some reasonable regulations on a 15-year old getting an abortion, but a 21 year old deciding to show her tits for money, THAT'S got to be out of bounds. (Hey, you know, that 15-year old might regret having that abortion later on in life... ooops, now THAT can't be a sufficient reason to regulate abortion, can it?)
Who says its from the outside? There are plenty trying to do enough to set up unions for sex work. If you need a shield to drive a cab... The biggest problem with GFR argument is that it further infantizes women. Does she really think that if a women can't legally show her breasts she'll be legally allowed to have an abortion?
A union? That isn't gonna fly. The women who work professionally in "The Industry" generally are considered "private contractors" and for the most part are paid very well...anywhere from $500 to $2,500 per scene (average is about $1,000 - $1,500 per scene). Two scenes per movie...3 movies (or more) per month...well you can do the math. And the women who work professionally in the porn industry aren't the ones who show up in Joe Francis videos. Francis is a bottom feeder of the highest order, without a doubt. But trying to make Francis out to be "the face" of the porn industry is like trying to make Hitler "the face" of all world leaders.
SomeCallMeTim- Well, I think there should pretty much be a union for everything. It's not really a question of imposing a union from the outside, but encouraging and supporting traditional labor organizing and unionization, in this particular industry as well as others. If we want to protect the young women who do this kind of work, we should encourge them to form a union, and then support collective bargaining agreements that prohibit employers from hiring non-union workers. There is already an International Union of Sex Workers" whose demands could be supported.
Maybe no union, but surely OSHA can regulate, right?
The problem with companies like WalMart are that they are exploiting non-unionized, unprotected, poorly compensated, unlicensed (and often incapacitated) temp workers, and profiting handsomely from this exploitative labor market. The problem with allowing those under 21 to drive is that they are not mature, and as they struggle in social situations their mind and control is not focused on the car. The problem with the Armed Forces are that they are exploiting non-unionized, unprotected, poorly compensated, unlicensed (and often incapacitated) temp workers, and profiting handsomely from this exploitative labor market. The problem with Emergency Medical Care costs are that they are exploiting non-unionized, unprotected, poorly compensated, unlicensed (and often incapacitated) temp workers, and profiting handsomely from this exploitative labor market. The problem with denying parental notification laws for abortions under 21 is that the girls involved are not mature and may be being exploited by boys and men over 21. The girls are unprotected, often incapacitated, and the men that have savaged them are profiting handsomely from this exploitive situation in which they can eliminate the evidence of their rape I am not sure there is a whole lot that is ethical about the Werewolf's views. He would patronize woman by assuming they are not competent adults and take away their right to contract. He justifies this violation of rights with some sort of judgmental nonsense about men could still get beat off material.
Here we see a proposal that is far, far more authoritarian - it's not just where porn can be sold, but which consenting adults can participate in porn - and it all comes down to a cost-benefit calculation. Ok, but you're talking about the difference between a policy actually implemented by a Republican official, and an idea advanced by a writer for the American Prospect and supported by a couple blog commentors. I know we're all in a hurry to be the first to play the hypocrisy card, but it's entirely possible that GFR and the couple of blog commentors don't actually have that big a problem with nanny-statism as practiced by Giuliani et al. Also, I'm not sure the porn shops were #1 on the list of liberal grievances with Giuliani in the first place.
Despite her youth, GFR always struck me as something of a stuffed shirt. A young fogey, if you will.
Eligibility to work as a model for pornography, and legal hiring for pornography, should be contingent on the model's membership in a sex worker union, Haha, for a change, I can disagree with Dan K. What if the model in question says fuck your union? Why should your social theory be more important in her life than her own judgment?
It's funny to see lefties call Rudy authoritarian when all he did was implement some zoning as to where porn shops could operate. Here we see a proposal that is far, far more authoritarian Again, I don't think it's fair to either GFR or The Very Face of the Left to identify the two.
Actually, I think it would benefit us on the left to firmly identify and discuss the authoritarian issues we like. Just as Matt likes his Barely Legal Porn, and Neil likes some of his Ethic-l An-l Porn, just as the Sharper Image sells Yuppie Porn, there is also Legal Porn, and usually it is authoritarian in nature and affects both left and right. When GFR and Amanda Marcotte and other feminists demand unequal protection under the law, demand that rights be taken away from adults, ignore biases in court and due process, that's as much Legal Porn to many on our left as laws that take away Habeas, allow for wiretapping, and cut taxes are too many on the right. We should understand our authoritarian desires so we can identify them and fight against them. And so we can mitigate the image these issues have perhaps justifiably given us in much of the rest of the citizenry.
so taking a nude picture of a 19 year old would be illegal but...excuse my french... fucking a 19 year old would be ok Uh, pinky, you do realize that currently it is illegal to take nude pictures of a 17-year-old and still legal to have intercourse with her (or a 16 or 15-year-old) depending on the place and circumstances?
And so we can mitigate the image these issues have perhaps justifiably given us in much of the rest of the citizenry. Or maybe people who falsely use the word "us" to imply they're a member of a group that they're not should blow it out their ass.
Oh, I see, Steve wants a cockfight, because Steve thinks that he is the sole arbiter of who is on the left, or who is a Democrat. The cry of troll and concern troll is bogus. It is intended to stifle conversation and police speech and thought. It is used by someone who is out of arguments. So Steve, if you insist, I will engage in a Democratic cockfight with you. Lay down your first strike Steve. Let's see how big and hard your Democratic cock measuring stick is. What's it going to be Steve? Your blog posts?
And if I understand Steve correctly, Steve is so damned proud of the stances taken by our Democratic party, that anyone that disagrees can go straight to hell. Take that Yglesias, for trying to work to save Social Security! And take that Yglesias, for trying to end the war in Iraq and keep us out of Iran! Steve says that your dissent means you too can go straight to hell. Everyone here, you've been warned. Say something bad about our Democratic Party and you're a concern troll. In the meantime Steve, I await your blow.
Just like at The Cafe you seem troll-obsessed jerry. Losing your cool is just what Steve wanted you to do...you fell right into the trap. But you proved you are a tough guy...bully for you, yipee!!!
I like Matt Yglesias, but his argument is not fully rational. Which suprises me. On policy grounds, simply put, implementing any such ban would be incredibly difficult. The 21-year-old drinking age is, famously, not the most rigorously enforced law on the books. The fact that establishments wishing to sell beer, wine, or liquor generally require licenses to do so does, however, provide an avenue through which enforcement can be conducted. A comparable porn rule would be even worse. Why would this ban be any more difficult than a ban on 17-year old porn? Or 16-year old porn? Or 15-year old porn? Obviously, enforcement will not be perfect. (In fact, some 17-year olds are in fact involved in porn.) But, we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good. Overall, Matt's argument lacks substance. Are 18-year old adults, as Matt asserts? Maybe. But really, isn't it artificial to think that everyone below 18 is a "child" and everyone above 18 is an "adult?" Of course it is. It is completely rational to have privileges (including the power to screw up the rest of your life i.e. drinking and perhaps getting into a foolish situation where you are driving or getting into pornography) accrue to people in steps rather than all at once. That reflects the reality where people grow and mature in a continuous fashion and do not suddenly turn into another creature entirely on some arbitrary date. Clearly, there is going to be an arbitrariness to any law that is based on age. But I do not hear Yglesias arguing that 17-year olds should be able to participate in porn. So that arbitrariness (and associated enforcement problems) are a problem with his preferred age as well. Thus, it is not a very good argument against making 21 the minimum age for participating in porn. Overall, I am suprised that Yglesias made such a poor argument. He normally does not leave such obvious flaws in his argument, but here is an exception. I suppose it is inevitable when you are making so many arguments, day in / day out.
It's not that I am troll obsessed Libertine, it's just that I find the cry of "Troll" and "Concern Troll" to almost always be used incorrectly and as a way to stifle others. It is in fact one of the authoritarian trends that goes on at many blogs left and right. As usual, what I note in this thread is a complete lack of trolling. I see a lot of people that have put a lot of thought into their comments discussing what they feel are the pros and cons of GFR's idea. Steve's contribution is to demean others and try to place himself one up through the use of smear and innuendo. My response is to identify that and place it on the table. Let others make it of as they may and decide the culture they want here. Interesting freewheeling discussions or controlled speech.
Maybe no union, but surely OSHA can regulate, right? Well here's one for the records: Al hits it on right on the head. The issue here is a business model that encourages peopel to part with something of value for far less than it's worth to either them or the purchaser, but targeting people who aren't in a position to bargain effectively. There's nothing inherently patronizing about pointing this out. We have minimumwages, laws limtiing hours of work, health and safety, and so on, not because we think workers are stupid, but because we know they lack the bargaining power to negotitate those things on their own. Young women who are often drunk, subject to strong social pressure, don't know anything about the Joe Francis' business or how much he's making off them, etc., are selling their images at a price that's not commensurate with eitehr its value to Francis or its cost to themselves. That's GFR's starting point, even if her solution is a bad one, as everyone agrees that it is. So, you regulate the business somehow. Like Kervick, I'm a big fan of unions, but in the US context some otehr kind of regualtion (like a "cooling-off" period that allows anyone a week's grace period to cancel any sale of the rights to their images) is probably more sensible. But it's perfectly possible to see a genuine problem here and want to solve it, and to respect the autonomy of young women including some for whom some type of sex work actually is a good choice.
Are 18-year old adults, as Matt asserts? Ummmmmm...the last I checked...in the eyes of the law...yes. So under your rationale if a 22 year-old had sex with a 19 year-old and made a film of the act for themselves (because they felt like doing so)...would the making of that film therefore be illegal?
The other point here is that you just can't settle this stuff on first principles. As lots of people are pointing out, there's no principle that makes 18 OK and 21 not, or vice versa. You have to look at the real-life experiences of people invovled. Given what we know about Joe Francis, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that many of the women he shoots are getting taken advantage of. But really, it's an empirical question.
if a 22 year-old had sex with a 19 year-old and made a film of the act for themselves (because they felt like doing so)...would the making of that film therefore be illegal? Depends how you write the law. Most of us who are sympathetic to GFR are only interested in the ability to sell someone else's likeness, so our answer would be no. Does taht make you feel better about the idea?
Um.... Instead of raising the 'age of pron' to 21, why not require that the model has to sign a consent form with a restriction that the form has to be signed either 24 hours before the shoot or 24 hours after the shoot, or have signature on file. The idea is one of reasonable consent.
Steve's contribution is to demean others and try to place himself one up through the use of smear and innuendo. And you responded in kind. BTW...I am very impressed with the size of your dick. I think the whole universe has penis envy now. It is so big you'll probably be pumping Andromeda soon... It's mind over matter...if you don't mind it doesn't matter. Steve tried to get a rise out of you and was successful...you obliged and whipped it out for all to see.
Instead of raising the 'age of pron' to 21, why not require that the model has to sign a consent form with a restriction that the form has to be signed either 24 hours before the shoot or 24 hours after the shoot, or have signature on file. The idea is one of reasonable consent. Yes, that's a much better approach. Seems like many people who are sympathetic to GFR but don't agree with her here, have ended up proposing something like this.
Most of us who are sympathetic to GFR are only interested in the ability to sell someone else's likeness, so our answer would be no. That makes no sense to me. So what if the couple turned around, signed a waiver and sold the rights to the footage to an amateur video producer? And by signing a contract with an adult video producer isn't a person saying it is ok, for a fee, to use their likeness to make a profit? Or are you only referring to bottom feeders like Francis who go to public events like Mardi Gras and film women, who are often grossly intoxicated, exposing themselves in public?
Where did I use smear and innuendo? I just identified his tactics. It's mind over matter...if you don't mind it doesn't matter. That's not how smear and innuendo works. Ask John Kerry. And as can be seen at many blogs, the comment sections are heavily policed with the cry of troll and concern troll. Verify for Steve then what my signature at the cafe is. As my sig there says, the one "crime" that I rate down on in a post is for calling someone a troll. The one ultimate crime that I give troll ratings for is to call someone a concern troll. The cry of "j'accuse concern troll" is a bogus power grab and the way to stop any dialogue and any progress. So yeah, I think that our authoritarian leanings need to be pointed out when they occur. It's what keeps your business safe, right?
Most of us who are sympathetic to GFR are only interested in the ability to sell someone else's likeness, so our answer would be no. This will work as well as the well written laws that have criminalized kids for taking pictures pictures of themselves and that have criminalized parents for taking nude pictures of their babies and children.
Quoting me asking "Are 18-year olds adults" a commentator asserts:
Wrong! Why aren't 18-year olds allowed to drink? Clearly, they are not considered to be fully adults. So under your rationale if a 22 year-old had sex with a 19 year-old and made a film of the act for themselves (because they felt like doing so)...would the making of that film therefore be illegal? I am fine with making it illegal to film sex that is legal to have in the privacy of your home. Why should all rights and responsibilities come all at once, instead of in a continuous fashion? Changing the question. Do you think that it should be legal to film the sex of a 17-year old and a 20-year old in jurisdictions where such sex is legal? Should sex between two under-aged teenagers be allowed to be filmed, just because it is legal in some jurisdictions? Obviously, there is nothing logically inconsistent with thinking that it should be legal for two people to have sex, but should be illegal for them (or anyone else) to film it and sell it for a profit.
So what if the couple turned around, signed a waiver and sold the rights to the footage to an amateur video producer? And by signing a contract with an adult video producer isn't a person saying it is ok, for a fee, to use their likeness to make a profit? Right. I'm not saying it should be illegal for 18-year olds to appear in porn videos. Here's what I am saying: Given the conditions in which young women are recurited and filemd for GGW-type porn, we need an extra level of protection to ensure that they are giving genuinely informed consent. One easy way to do this is to require them to provide consent a significant period (24 hours, a week) whateevr, eitehr before or after the pictures are taken. A more ambuitious approach would be Dan Kervick's, where you'd need to get some kind of certification (call it a union card) before being able to appear in porn. The point is just to avoid the situation where someone can sign away rights to their image without having time to make an informed decision, in a social settnig where they're under pressure to do so, and where they're probably drunk.
Viscus, I am honestly just curious about how you feel about parental notification laws such as those requiring parents be told about abortions, as well as a new one from Arizona Sherriff Joe Arpaio that would tell parents about any traffic stops of their kids.
Obviously, there is nothing logically inconsistent with thinking that it should be legal for two people to have sex, but should be illegal for them (or anyone else) to film it and sell it for a profit. Based on what legal reasoning? The constitutional right not be allowed to do something that you might be embarassed about in the future? What public good would be served by doing so? It sounds like "when feminism meets religious morality" to me. And btw I think 18 year-olds should be allowed to legally drink...I think it would cut down on binge drinking. I find it completely hypocritical that a person can fight and die for their country but can't have a drink if they make it home in one piece.
What if the model in question says fuck your union? Why should your social theory be more important in her life than her own judgment? This is an old left-right debate, Gary. I guess it comes down to what you believe about "right to work" laws, and whether or not individual economic liberty should sometimes take a back seat to social goals.
Dan wants com'nist porn! Porn for the proletariat!
Porn for the proletariat! There are worse slogans. And for some reason, I suspect that porn actors might be quite good union material.
One thing lost in the debate is that the women who sign Francis' waivers or contracts or whatever while intoxicated do have legal recourse against him. You generally can't enter into legally binding arrangements with an intoxicated person. It seems this may have been how the matter rose to attention in the first place; he got sued by some women/girls who are claiming that whatever consent they gave was not valid b/c they were intoxicated when they gave it. Our existing laws can deal with these matters. However the fact that Francis has done this for so long and been so successful at it suggests that there are some problems. I suppose he can afford to hire better lawyers or pay off unhappy participants or whatever, and the women/girls featured in his videos who might make such claims are probably not that enthusiastic about drawing further attention to themselves. These reasons may be why a waiting period-type regulation makes sense, as others have suggested.
One should really put together various "legal" ages, and see if as a collection they make any sense. age at which homicide makes one liable of responsibility "as an adult" age at which it is OK to have sex with a partner no more than 2 years older age at which it is OK to have sex with anyone age at which it is OK to decide to have an abortion age at which it is OK to shoot to kill, while on government payroll age at which it is OK to drive and risk the life and limb of oneself and the public age at which it is OK to voluntarily pose with totally nude torse (under 10, and above 21? how about the boys? and how about flat chested girls?) age at which it is OK to consume alcohol age at which it is OK to consume cigarettes age at which it is OK to consume marijuana (for legalization proponents)
One should really put together various "legal" ages, and see if as a collection they make any sense. age at which homicide makes one liable of responsibility "as an adult" age at which it is OK to have sex with a partner no more than 2 years older age at which it is OK to have sex with anyone age at which it is OK to decide to have an abortion age at which it is OK to shoot to kill, while on government payroll age at which it is OK to drive and risk the life and limb of oneself and the public age at which it is OK to voluntarily pose with totally nude torse (under 10, and above 21? how about the boys? and how about flat chested girls?) age at which it is OK to consume alcohol age at which it is OK to consume cigarettes age at which it is OK to consume marijuana (for legalization proponents)
It's not the issue that's being most narrowly focused on here, but I think the following suggestion is really the essential one -- "Ideally, we’d have a culture where being a public Girl Who Does It wouldn’t be a bad thing." In the end, if you achieve this, the problems that Garance is worried about dissolve. The costs of being photographed naked become a lot lower for women, and I think it'd be really cool to live in a culture where they turn into benefits. (The quote is from Amanda Marcotte.)
Ideally, we’d have a culture where being a public Girl Who Does It wouldn’t be a bad thing Maybe it's just late, but can you enumerate the ways in which women who "do it" are considered bad these days? Cause I'm not seeing it. Is the average woman really oppressed because society doesn't want to know she wants to have sex or even has sex? As a bonus, try enumerating this without using google, or pandagon, or any other fem sites. Just you. Go.
Um, dude, Google is a "fem site"? You've got some deep-seated issues. So let me put it this way. Suppose your 18-year-old daughter (make it your sister, if that makes the example better for you) comes up to you and says, "Daddy! I've got this great job offer! I'm gonna have sex with a guy, and it's gonna be on video, and I'll get paid $1000!" So what do you think? Are you worried for her? Sure, I don't think you should be able to stop her -- she's an adult and can make your own decisions. But you can be very worried that adults you love might come to some misfortune of their own decisions, right? Perhaps you're worried that guys (and respectable employers) who find out about it won't treat her as they ought to in the future? It seems to me that in our sad cultural situation, this is a legitimate worry for you to have. I would spill my blood to bring about the day when it won't be.
"Sure, I don't think you should be able to stop her -- she's an adult and can make your own decisions." Right. And Garance has taken to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to argue that you should be able to stop her with the full force of the US Justice Department. Garance has taken to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to argue that she is not an adult, that she can't make her own decisions. It's worthy of nothing but contempt.
Oh Petey, you simply don't understand. The poor delicate blossoms which Garance wants to protect are just too frail to withstand the wintry blasts of modern life. Whither our "modern nation" when we will not prevent our most prized songbirds from the temptation of soiled-dovery, aided by demon rum? I therefore call for a complete ban on consumption of alcohol by women, plus a law requiring parental (or husbandly) consent for ANY photograph of a woman, of any age!
Moving beyond the deep layers of snark and self righteousness in this thread, I wonder if there is an authentically Left position on what many view as the cultural degradation of the country. And I'm not talking about rock n' roll and marijuana, here, or Marilyn Manson and video games, or even pornography per se, but about the kind of politically vitiating cultural emptiness that distracts the populace from the increasingly imperial and unrepublican society they live in. The culture of celebrity, the power of image: it is making one giant Los Angeles of the nation. For all the reasons listed above, I don't particularly embrace GFR's "solution," but I do resent the fact that simply being uneasy about the increasingly "mainstream" nature of pornography impels some of us to label her a hypocrite, Republican, or worse. Clearly, I am not calling for the elimination of erotic content in art or some other such absurdity. And certainly not for state action; but, in 18th Century fashion, I wonder what this obsession with image and the reproduction of images, of fame, does to 'public virtue,' to our ability as a People to fight back against the media and other corporate overlords as we drift further and further towards Caligula's Rome, and away from that of Mucius Scaevola and the Gracchi.
Well I think Franke-Ruta's idea is too silly to deserve angry contempt, though it certainly deserves all the ridicule heaped on it. Dan K's legislated closed shop on the other hand probably is worthy of contempt; but it's far from silly. I'm only fifty years old; so I'll have to read up on that kind of totalitarian regulation.
I wonder if there is an authentically Left position on what many view as the cultural degradation of the country. Funding for better schools and similar opportunities to acquire more sophisticated taste.
Perhaps you're worried that guys (and respectable employers) who find out about it won't treat her as they ought to in the future? My sense is that, in the more common case, women going into porn have been abused by close family members. Color me skeptical as to whether you're really worried about future employment or mates, and not just angry that your property has forgotten that it's your property.
Gary Sugar, On the other hand, maybe we should just get rid of TeeVee.
"..."as we drift further and further towards Caligula's Rome, and away from that of Mucius Scaevola and the Gracchi..." Way OT and I'm no historian, but this general (and popular) assessment of republican vs. imperial Rome is wildly distorted. The Roman Republic was corrupt and oligarchic--comparable to the privatization of post-Communist Russia, only far worse in degree. The theatrically extreme degeneracy of the early Emperors is probably mostly a fiction promoted by contemporary chroniclers with an axe to grind (and further inflated by Edward Gibbon and Robert Graves, who are lots of fun to read but should not be taken as serious scholarship.)
Moving beyond the deep layers of snark and self righteousness in this thread, I wonder if there is an authentically Left position on what many view as the cultural degradation of the country. Well, I’ll give it a shot. There certainly is one trend in left thought that sees the market for low-grade hedonistic pleasures - narcotics and other intoxicants, pornography, junk food, junk politics, pop music - as one of the ingenious mechanisms by which capitalism reduces its citizens to consumers, and keeps us all in the condition of stupid, impulsive, desire-ridden beasts: perpetually chasing some ephemeral and immediate-term pleasure; divided one from another inside our anxious narcissistic cocoons; and unable to get our acts together for more than 15 minutes at a time to act with focused and energetic human solidarity, guided by reason rather than impulse, to create a society that provides all of us equally with lives truly worth living. In modern America, most people are addicted to something, and the incessant feeding of these addictions is the fuel that propels the ugly market leviathan onward in its mindless destruction of the earth, human beings and the things of enduring human value. All of this frenzied pursuit of hollow sensory nothingness is a profound waste of human energy. It annihilates spirit and intellect. It also undermines the ideal of self-government, since people who are slaves to the senses can’t even govern their own individual lives, and are hardly in a position to participate intelligently in governing a society. Is that authentic?
I just want to point out that in my most recent post, I wasn't dealing with the issue of the Garance article at all, but a separate issue that came up in discussion with jerry.
And btw I think 18 year-olds should be allowed to legally drink...I think it would cut down on binge drinking. I find it completely hypocritical that a person can fight and die for their country but can't have a drink if they make it home in one piece. I don't think it is rational of you to reify a particular age and say that if any privileges and responsibilities are given at a particular age, then all privileges and responsibilities must also be given at that age. What is so special about 18? Why not 19? Do we have to change the day that you can drive a car to 18 too, under your logic? I think it makes sense to have a system where people are given increased rights and responsibilities in steps, rather than all at once. This more accurately reflects people's actual mental development. Based on what legal reasoning? The constitutional right not be allowed to do something that you might be embarassed about in the future? What public good would be served by doing so? It sounds like "when feminism meets religious morality" to me. First of all, it would clearly be constitutional to make such laws as those proposed in the article in question. Note, that not only do not all laws emanate from constitutional rights, but most laws do not so emanate. You want legal reasoning? Here is is. If law X is passed and law X is constitutional and someone violates law X, they can be punished according to the terms of the law. There is your legal reasoning. =) Second, the public good is clear. Whenever we can assist someone from making an immature mistake that they will regret for the rest of their life, the public good is served. Third, not all morality is religious. One does not have to be religious to think that it is good policy to help young women avoid mistakes that involve their exploitation by men. Fourth, there is nothing wrong with morality. In fact, feminism is all about morality. (i.e. it is wrong for men to exploit women).
xfjkp xbjeyn beuqdlsz dwhtbamj yujvkmd keds otwl
xfjkp xbjeyn beuqdlsz dwhtbamj yujvkmd keds otwl
Comments closed May 22, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
How about a law requiring people who get paid to tell us their opinions about things and especially those who get paid to tell us what sorts of new laws they'd like to enact have to spend five years in a medium security prison? My guess is they'd come out with a feeling that government should be doing a great deal less about a whole lot of things, not more.
It also occurs to me that maybe it's time for the pc and the Christian right to be wedded in some kind of civil union; they have more and more in common.
Posted by Linus | May 8, 2007 6:00 PM