Welcome to
The Love Weavers' blog. If unfamiliar with the blog, scroll down.
In search of pornography
by Seelie Kay**
You
may have noticed that more than one book published by eXtasy Books involves
characters who engage in sex. Not a big shocker for many, but unfortunately, it
is disturbing for some. Certain people have, for example, advised me that my books
would be much better without the sex.
“Your
characters are strong, the stories interesting, why do you have to put in all
that sex?” they say. “That’s not erotica, that’s porn!”
Aha! When will people learn not to toss
about words that are in fact legal terms in front of a lawyer?
Yes, I write about lawyers, love,
and kink. My short stories involve
lawyers who participate in (mostly) loving relationships that may involve
erotic play. My books are not about brother-sister relationships, nor do they
pretend to be. My books are about relationships that involve consenting adults
who happen to occasionally…wait for it…have
sex, make love, hit the sheets, and/or do the doody. And sometimes, in pursuit of sexual
satisfaction, one partner may tie the other up, affix a nipple clamp, or apply
a hand to the buttocks. Just because
that may shock you does not make it porn.
As a lawyer, I can tell you that in
the United States, the definition of porn
has long been a subject of rather heated discussions among the legal community
and in the courts. In fact, its very definition
remains somewhat vague and confused. For
example, in a 1964 case, Jacobellis v. Ohio, the nine-member U. S. Supreme Court was somewhat befuddled by what should be
considered obscene and therefore, speech not protected by the First Amendment.
The court offered four different majority opinions, none of which were joined
by more than two justices. There were also two dissenting opinions.
In
that case, Justic Potter Stewart’s opinion in support of the majority concurred
that the
the U.S.
Constitution protected all obscenity except hard-core
pornography. Justice Stewart also wrote,
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I
understand to be embraced within that shorthand description and perhaps I could
never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it
when I see it….”
No court opinion since that time has
further clarified the definition of hard
core pornography and as a result, the definition and state laws regulating
obscenity remain a conspicuous muddle of vagary.
Dictionaries also fail to clarify
the matter. One dictionary defines erotica
as “literature or art intended to arouse sexual
desire” while also stating that pornography
is “the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal.” Hmmm,
get the difference? I certainly don’t.
Yet I would continue to argue that they are not the same.
From my perspective,
erotica is the portrayal of sensual, sometimes loving, relationships that may
or may not include sex. Pornography
is sex for sex’s sake. It has no purpose other than to portray a sexual act. In
addition, I would argue that the use of the term sexual arousal as the end goal in dictionary definitions is
somewhat disingenuous, because what causes sexual arousal in some may not
result in arousal for others. As proof,
look no further than the multiple genres and heat levels offered by eXtasy
Books. Each one attracts a difference
audience.
I don’t
expect everyone to agree with my definitions, in fact, I encourage others to
put forth their own. I suspect porn is
truly in the eyes of the beholder.
However, while it is appropriate to agree to disagree, playing the
blaming/shaming game is not. Lack of agreement is not about right or wrong, it
is about failure to agree. Let’s face it, we each think we know porn when we
see it and that’s why even the highest court in America can’t define it.
In the end,
tolerance of ideas different from your own is what makes a civilized society.
Your erotica may not be my erotica, but I will protect your right to embrace or
avoid it.
**Seelie Kay is the author of
Kinky Briefs and the
soon-to-be-released Kinky Briefs, Too
and The Garage Dweller. For more
information on Seelie, visit http://www.extasybooks.com/seelie-kay/ or www.seeliekay.com.
Who are we? The Love Weavers are a bunch of writers. We all
write for Extasy Books and/or Devine Destinies and a lot of us write in other
places as well. We write in multiple genres for general and adult readership.
Many of our books are love stories of some kind or another, and we enjoy
looking at love in all its wonderful variety.
The purpose of this blog is to tell our readers something about our craft,
our passion for stories, how we build our worlds, what characters we choose and
why, how we use clothing, food, music, weather, colour, themes, symbolism,
history, science, and (okay) love to bring these stories to life.Some of our posts are suitable for general readers. These will have a big G at the top. (G)Some of our posts are suitable for adults only.These will have a big AO at the top. (AO)Welcome to The Love Weavers' blog. We can't wait to share the love.
Fascinating look at the legal side of this issue. Reminds me of the Ern Malley "Angry Penguins" obscenity trial.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting look.
ReplyDeleteFrom the 'eye of the beholder' point of view, a person I knew once had a screensaver of Old Masters paintings (Michelangelo, da Vinci, etc.) - a co-worker asked this person why they had 'porn' on their computer.....
Oh. Dear.
ReplyDeleteI remember the "Lady Chatterley's Lover" trial in the '60s, when the prosecuting barrister asked the jury "Would you allow your wife, or your servants to read it?" There was laughter in the court! In a landmark ruling the DH Lawrence novel was deemed not to be obscene (there's another word with numerous interpretations).
ReplyDeleteIndeed. I've always felt the difference between porn and erotica is that in erotica (well, the sort I would read), everyone has a bangin' good time while in porn some of them don't. As one writer of my acquaintance said, erotica is fantasy. As I would add, it is fantasy that can make us happy without spilling into our real worlds.
DeleteLove the dictionary definitions. Translated to legal-speak it no doubt means that "5+2=7" and is okay, but "2+5=7" is not okay and somehow illegal.
ReplyDeleteOh Puritans, did you ever think your legacy would last this long after your demise and your prudishness affect so many unwilling participants?
All fascinating, isn't it?
ReplyDelete