Tag Archives: psychology today

In Your Facebook

Leave a reply

Alarming piece from Jezebel.com:

‘According to Dr. David J. Ley of Psychology Today, Facebook has started deleting several “pages of several women and female sexuality organizations,” including the page of Self Serve, “a women-owned and run sexuality resources center.”

The women at Self Serve, Ley writes, had their page deleted after they posted an informational video about labiaplasty. The video, Ley notes, “has a heartfelt message, urging women to love their bodies as they are, and not to give in to mutilation to fit an unrealistic, and uncommon ideal based upon porn,” but apparently triggered the organization’s page removal from Facebook due to the fact that it contained pictures of vaginas. The context, it seems, was unimportant: the fact that vaginas were being shown was enough of a justification for Facebook to delete the page. Ley also notes that the page of sex columnist Violet Blue was also deleted, even though she “had worked hard to comply with Facebook’s rules. She was given no advance notice and no explanation of why her page was deleted.” Ley wonders if perhaps these deletions are indicative of a larger, scarier issue: that the site is intentionally targeting, and removing, women-run celebrations of the female body and female sexuality…’

Full article here.

Stagliano

Leave a reply

Although I’m not a fan of John Stagliano (aka Buttman), I’m very glad that the ludicrous charges against him have been dropped. During the Bush administration’s age of neo-puritanism, there were approximately twice as many obscenity cases launched as there were during Bill Clinton’s presidency. The Washington Post reports that in 2009, 20 defendants were charged, compared with 54 the previous year.

Here’s part of an article from Psychology Today, by Marty Klein:

“…The charge was simply that the DVDs appealed to the average person’s “prurient interest,” were “patently offensive,” and “lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” These are the actual words of the Miller Test that guide the law. If you can get a jury to agree that a given recording, painting, book, DVD, or stage show meets these three tests, the government can declare the thing “obscene.” It then loses its First Amendment protection, and it creator and distributor can be sent to jail.

That’s right-the depiction of a legal activity can be illegal. Sex is so special, that we’re not allowed to see or hear about things that we’re allowed to do. I don’t know why more people are outraged about this.

The first consideration–“prurient interest”–is not only archaic (does the average person know what “prurient” means?), it’s completely subjective. How are people supposed to judge whether a film or song appeals to their neighbours’ healthy or unhealthy interest in sex?

The second consideration–“patently offensive”–is equally subjective. Along with “prurient interest,” this is a bizarre standard of lawfulness. If being “offensive” is illegal, there are some Congress Members who shouldn’t be allowed to wear shorts in public. And Joan Rivers should be executed immediately.

The third consideration–“lacks value”–elevates the personal opinions of a dozen random people to god-like status (especially if you’re the defendant), and begs for carloads of experts. Is Milk Nymphos satire? An indictment of sexist prohibitions against breast-feeding in public? A documentation of creative use of enemas, or associated paraphilias?

When the Supreme Court first described the Miller Test in 1973, it was intended to codify the chaotic state of American censorship at that time. But it is shockingly subjective. It asks a jury of lay people to discern what their neighbours think about sex-a subject about which people are notoriously shy discussing seriously…”

Full article here.