Comments

9 responses to “This is the most sexually explicit thing I’ve ever posted on this blog, and yet …”

1. 2012/08/22

   alecm

   See also: When Harry Met Sally.

   Reply
2. 2012/08/22

   Dio

   Tra is often reprieved in perverse.

   Reply
   1. 2012/08/23

      alecm

      Mind rephrasing that, Joe?

      Reply
3. 2012/08/23

   Dio

   Art is often perceived as perverse. Unfortunatly, I could not grok perceived and reverse and still be cute with my response. Btw, I had to watch the video again. I still don’t feel violated by it, but I may need to have a smoke.

   Reply
4. 2012/08/26

   alecm

   By comparison: this is much more naked and porny, and yet it’s just an advert:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQkavREdIRs

   Reply
5. 2012/09/01

   alecm

   back story:
   http://stoya.tumblr.com/post/28527362494/hysterical-literature

   Reply
6. 2013/03/15

   Stoya on the Pitfalls of Heteronormativity and Monogamy | VICE United States #MUSTREAD | dropsafe

   […] Previously. […]

   Reply
7. 2013/03/15

   Dave Walker

   An useful reference piece, to present in support of the “what’s porn?” argument – particularly in the context of the “if people can’t decide what is and isn’t porn, and can’t produce an agreed, consistent and deterministic algorithm for deciding on what is and isn’t porn, then a computer doesn’t have a whelk’s chance in a supernova” argument which appears to be happening in various countries right now, about why the Internet can’t have reliable (no false-positives or false-negatives) and scalable porn-blocking filters put on it.

   Hopefully, there will be a mass outbreak of sensible opinion on this too, shortly; I also note the BBC has finally posted a piece on the strange legal netherworld inhabited by people between the ages of 16 and 18, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21742512 – although they fail to make note of BBFC classifications prohibiting 16 year olds watching footage of people doing things they are themselves allowed to, for a further 2 years.

   Reply
8. 2013/03/16

   Dave Walker

   Further, the most amusing double-standard is that nobody seems (that I’ve heard about, anyway) to be looking at banning literature again, or even creating some “British Board of Book Classification”.

   “Lady Chatterley” is not only published, but now it’s out of copyright, it’s downloadable as a PDF for free. So is the entire canon of Donatien Alphonse de Sade. Nothing stops anyone, of any age, walking into a bookshop (and most supermarkets) and buying a copy of “50 Shades Thingy”. When the trilogy came out in paperback, it was almost impossible to sit down in a cafe or tube train without seeing someone reading a copy.

   We’re back to the wonderfully thorny matter of “freedom of speech” again – and there’s more double-standards to come out of the interpretation of rights and responsibilities arising there, than from anything else. When “50 Shades” is (inevitably) filmed, it’ll probably come out with an 18 certificate, and almost certainly skip the most lurid bits completely to satisfy the censors, the way that “Trainspotting” did. The book will remain freely available, of course.

   (Caveat: I’ve not read any of the “50 Shades” trilogy, but I’m given to understand they’re rather poor. “120 Days of Sodom” was an eye-opener, and I’m nothing if not esoteric in my reading…)

   Reply