2HousePlague

Someone dared suggest above that the commonality of "arousal" situates [new term TBD] within the spectrum of "pornography".

It does NOT.

Some folks are fond of eating shit, that doesn't make it food.


Well enough said to require no paraphrase here:
The Law enlarges with the passage of time. This means that, as a society gets older and more "advanced", it becomes more experienced and discovers new areas where it decides the Law should be.

Besides exhibiting a generally expansive trend, the Law, in basic opinion and and in applied detail, will also generally follow the Will of the People. As we know to be the case in this country, and elsewhere, both at present and throughout history, the Law and morality may not always agree. But, since providing a moral imperative is an effective way to influence Law Makers, those who would, for their own reasons, want to bring about the criminalization of an activity not innately immoral will produce a moral argument in support of their position. This is why the argument for keeping marijuana illegal relates not to any direct attributes of marijuana, but to the idea that marijuana use pre-disposes those who use it to acts which are innately immoral (like robbing convenience stores) and to acts that are not innately immoral, but which have been well enough classified as immoral (like pre-marital sex) -- usually by the same people.

Let us not forget that both the Law and the "Will of the People" have, in the past, lead us down some tragic and regrettable paths. Slavery. Let us remember, also that -- even against such entrenched dogma and cultural habituation as supported slavery for hundreds of years, the persistence, eloquence and timeliness of the Abolitionist Outcry did prevail, and that even in an America steeped in immorality, a moral law was ratified. Of course it helped that the Abolitionist effort included a number of legal scholars and a number of exceptionally talented PR people. In the end, you might say the Abolitionist victory owed to equal parts being right and being smart

To know what is important for us at this moment in our battle for continuing legality, and to discern the correct strategy at this time, all you have to do is think like a general -- back away from the immediacies at hand (2257, .XXX etc.) and take a perspective of the totality of the conflict.

If you do that, you will see that what is at stake right now are a number of critical DEFINITIONS and CLASSIFICATIONS, both legally and morally. It is currently a war of meaning, and if we fail to assert the right SELF-DESCRIPTIONS we will see ourselves described by others in ways that suit their agenda.

The "front line" is anywhere there is a lack of clarity as regards what we do and how we do it. If you go there, you will very likely discover that the Enemy is there or has been there recently. There will be some reversal work to do. Some of the anti-porn bias we'll encounter is not new, merely long-un-addressed by us, and in some cases, even contributed to by us. If it is our desire to remain a legitimate industry, we should do all we can to appear that way now. Though it is a part of our lore, the trappings of illegality or even the style of illegality which a number of us still cling to, don't help the cause. It might just be marketing to you, but it's a subtle, tacit "I am a criminal." to many who can only form their impressions of us and of our business from what they see.

The perception of any connection between our lawful business and an atrocious criminal depravity must be fought aggressively and vocally hereforward. We can suffer no equivocations or technicalities on this point -- no gray. I am concerned that in our desire to be of assistance to law enforcement, we have permitted a misunderstanding to take root. Law enforcement concerned with [new term TBD] should have been working shoulder-to-shoulder with this industry, availing themselves of our expertise. We should be standing with Law Enforcement, helping to point out the bad guys Instead, we have gone down a path of murky distinctions and undefended defintions, and now find ourselves the target of legal efforts to eliminate [new term TBD], when there is NO [new term TBD] here! Does no one find that outrageous? I do.

I am also concerned about the role of the ASACP in all this. An advocacy group that, for its very raison d'etre, begins every sentence it offers on our behalf with an implicit apology, is no advocate. For having accepted the responsibility of removing [new term TBD] from our midst, we have (not in so many words) admitted that it's here, when it's not.

We have allowed ourselves to be manipulated into culpability by those who rightly and righteously seek justice against criminals. It seems, now, that this has happened because we were not properly guarding our definitions. I stronly suggest we start. I am a proud pornographer.




2HP

__________________
tada!