Gracie has wrangled a who's-who of erotica and sexuality to discuss the political climate of porn today. They all had relatively similar responses, and all in line with what you'd expect from the oppressed side, but that doesn't make it less relevant. Because of the murky realm of what pornography and obscenity are, in today's US legal climate it's up to an observer to decide if any item meets the definition of 'obscene.'

While that might not scare you, you might want to consider it from a logical standpoint. This means that the creation or ownership of an item itself is not the illegal event -- the accusation by the observer(s) who determined the condition of obscenity is the event that makes the item illegal.

Accusing someone of speeding is expected to be accompanied by evidence -- a radar gun, a police observer, or an expert who measured tire skid marks and impact results -- that shows factually that the event meets a legal threshhold for legality. Simply saying, "I think they were driving too fast," is not enough to cause conviction for speeding, even if you can find people who agree with you and can make a good point for the appropriate driving speed. Even if the accusation of driving too fast results in a speed limit change, the driver will not be punished for speeding.

Obscenity, however, works this way: the opinion of the observer is the key decider, and how convincing their accusation is will either get their opinion upheld or denied. A business transparently and openly selling nudie magazines for years could find themselves on the recieving end of an obscenity accusation, regardless of the number of customers who partake or the lack of objections until that point, simply due to how eloquent their accuser is. In fact, a key aspect of the obscenity law covers anything that a person could masturbate to - the definition of 'prurient interest'. Take a long, hard look at the 'prurient' things you partake of on a regular basis, or are available to you if you chose. The other defining points of literary/artistic value and community standards are nebulous at best...and change based on public opinion, not on legal definitions.

This establishes sexuality as an inherently illegal act, awaiting discovery by an offended observer willing to prove lack of artistic value and violation of community standards.

It is a sinisterly slow-moving process by which Hefner could find himself, after decades of support, twisting on the recieving end of an offended population's short stick. It would be ignored, because today they started with the animal porn, and then the obscenely large vibrators, and then the anal sex...and then the strip clubs that go panty-free...and then companies taking pictures of legally naked adults but neglected to obtain verification of age...and then the companies that photograph naked women at all...and then what? Well, if it's as bad as animal porn, then it must be horrible -- all the sick, horrible, obscene things that need to be made illegal. And who would defend Playboy against an obscenity definition? Defending Playboy when it's an obscene, disgusting publication as bad as beastiality! Not so, but the pursuers of obscenity are leaning in that direction.

Videotaping you and your partner having sex is prurient and lacks artistic value - and do you think it'd be hard to find someone to accuse you of violating societal standards? Phone sex lacks artistic value, is prurient in interest...and if your community decides it's unaccaptible, you are no longer protected by the 1st Amendment -- obscenity is not protected speech. You may think that you can live without strip clubs and the Spice channel, but they are not so far separated from the things that arouse your sexual being.

Extreme? Yes, but we've all done naughtier things than phone sex and videotaping sex: Kinsey has told us so. The common attitude is, "if it might be illegal and you don't want to defend it in court, don't do it." However, take a look at how your sexuality influences your life: they are ingrained with each other, you obscene thing.

My solution: obscenity should be limited to definable harm: public nudity could cause emotional harm to the unexpecting viewer, child pornography and beastiality cause harm to participants that cannot give consent, and rough sex should be subject to the same definitions that assault cases are subject to. This does not criminalize the sexual act -- it criminalizes the direct effects the sexual act has on the participants and society.

Having a coworker lick whipped cream off your neck and having your breasts fondled might be fun -- but it's not a good idea if you're a police sergeant, and the coworker is your subordinate. The lickee/fondlee was fired (mostly because of her speckled diciplinary record), while the 'licker,' the birthday girl herself, was suspended for 10 days. Unfortunately, I'm letting the horndog in me get the better of my opinion of the situation: two policewomen, licking whipped cream off each other and fondling their breasts? Woah, that's hot. I'll bet there's a pornsite for this exact situation!

What do you get when you show Chirac, the British Queen, and Dubya in a menage a troi? In trouble with the viewing public, that's what. The billboard (see pic in link) has two women and a man in close sexual contact, wearing Halloween masks of the world's favorite heads-of-state. For somewhat obvious reasons, this act of artistic political defiance didn't get its point across with the Austrian citizenry, and many have demanded it be taken down. Take special note that this means roadside porn is acceptible if there is a political opinion embedded in it. Take extra-special note at the size of President GW Bush's breasts.

Poor UK -- starting in the new year, the legal system will crack down on prostitution. They cite drugs and misogyny as the reason, because we all know that both of those cease to exist without prostitution to instigate ithem. Excuses, excuses to produce an air of moral superiority -- no doubt to show the US how 'progressive' the UK is.

Canada proves, yet again, why they're the cooler country -- they've legalized swinger's clubs. Unlike the US, who shrugs and says, "well, it's not IL-legal, exactly...", Canada's courts determined, 7-2, that there's nothing inherently harmful to society about swinging. Oh, and not just 'swinging,' but partner-swapping and group sex were explicitly included as A-OK activities. Canada's position is summed up according to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin: "Moral views, even if strongly held, do not suffice...As members of a diverse society, we must be prepared to tolerate conduct of which we disapprove." Laugh at Canada's accent all you want -- the words are truer than any others in a true democracy.

Sex toys are reaching social acceptance -- drugstores are adding more 'pleasure' products in addition to their sterile and utilitarian 'sperm blocking' wares, and those condom producers are developing lines of toys marketed more tastefully than the standard 'orgasmic porn star' packaging that domainates the shelves of dirty bookstores today.

These have to be the GREATEST EBAY PRODUCT PHOTOS EVER! Sad thing is -- I've seen ebay sellers doing exactly this in their real auctions.

Sex is more work for women -- if only because their ass of a male partner are too stupid to do anything about it. Much of this article's theories are about two incompatible people trying to move forward entirely on the back of the woman's effort. Why excuse the male ass from his responsibility? Apparently, because waiting for the man to make any sort of move is a guaranteed loss.

Less than a week left to buy a porn company on eBay! Zero bids, $100,000 starting price -- it's a steal for a debtless company with valuable intellectual property. Be sure to check out the 'product shots' from different various...ahem...angles.

An in-store demonstration video demonstrated a bit more than chopping onions. It's downright amazing. Pornography turns up everywhere: blank tapes, videos returned to the rental shop, video cameras returned at Best Buy. No wonder everyone loves porn -- you can't go anyplace without running across it accidentally!

The double-standard is shrinking -- boys getting laid by Mrs Robinson are ending up with their older lover in jail. Double standards are never good, even if it involves in people getting more sex, so you women: go get laid by someone your own age. You complain about grown men being childish and annoying? Teens are even worse. While teens aren't supposed to be having sex, they're better off doing it with other teens so both of them can grow out of their stupid years. You, cradle-robbing ladies, aren't going to grow out of your stupidity.

Great sex and creativity are linked -- although generations of musicians and artists can already attest to this, at least science is finally proving something worthwhile for us. Hooray science!

Your species is better off with fewer males. Apparently,an overabundance of violent, stupid, clumsy males can injure and kill enough females to completely ruin the ability to further the species. I, for one, am a smart, caring, genle male, and should be kept for reproduction purposes when the lady stormtroopers start equalizing the human race.

Searching for "Erotic Mittens" on GIS totally does not produce search results of pornographic hand-warmers. Well, I supppose it depends on your definition of 'hand warmers', but....um...I'm thinking way to much about this, so I better stop now.

How to get into the XXX Website Design Industry: be good at your job. Who knew? Job perks include being separated from the 'talent', looking at pornographic pictures on a per-pixel level, and being paid less than at the bigger corporate IT departments. Glamour isn't what you're looking for: it's the business card, with your name just below the name of a porn website corporation, that is your reward.

The guy from the 1980s encyclopedia commercials attends a porn shoot. No, I wasn't running a random-word generator: he actually did, with photos to prove he was actually there.