[ADS-L] New meanings for pornogra phy?

[Arnold M. Zwicky]

On Oct 29, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Ron Butters wrote:

> I think that Charlie Doyle is right in his post when he says that
> pornography
> implies illegality for many people. And it is also the case that
> not every
> attempt at sexual titilation is pornography, and what constitutes
> prurience is a
> matter of taste...

dave wilton has now replied to this posting (and one from wilson
gray), explaining the current standing, in u.s. law and regulation,
of the words "pornography", "obscenity", and "indecency".  but this
is not what ron butters was talking about in his posting; he was
talking about the way people use such words in ordinary language.  in
this case, i agree that many people think (incorrectly) that
pornography implies illegality.  i'm not sure how they square this
with the existence of stores and mail-order firms selling great
amounts of pornography -- but all of us believe in several
contradictory things at the same time, in one domain or another.

on indecency, i've posted on the topic on Language Log:

7/18/06: Drawing the line:
  http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003362.html

-----
Consider porn magazines, a species of utilitarian literature whose
purpose is to provide descriptions and images that will bring its
(mostly male) readers to climax.  These days, pretty much anything
goes -- linguistically and visually -- inside the covers of these
publications.  But the covers themselves present a challenge: they
should be as enticing as possible (so that people will buy the
magazines), but they also have to steer clear of illegality as to
what words and images can be publicly visible.  So you get avoidance,
in this very unlikely place.  In combination with pushing as close to
the line as possible.

... The no-no words for the covers are fuck, of course, plus
cocksucker and cocksucking; the covers seem also to avoid cock
'penis' and asshole.  The no-no images are of penises, testicles, and
anuses.  Otherwise, you can get right up to the line.

Visually, buttocks are fine, as is a certain amount of pubic hair,
plus erections visible through clothing.  Full frontal nudity can
appear on a cover, so long as the model's equipment is concealed
behind a teaser for one of the stories or photo spreads inside.
Couples can even be pictured in positions that are unmistakably part
of one of the sex acts that can't be directly named, so long as their
naughty bits aren't shown.
-----

similar restrictions apply to images on postcards (with exceptions
made for works of art, especially recognized masterworks).  i know
about these restrictions because one of my artistic activities is
creating "XXX-rated comic homoerotic collages", some of which get
turned into postcards; the issue is then which ones have to go inside
an envelope to avoid the unwanted attentions of the USPS.  rules as
above: buttocks fine, etc. (and breasts are ok for women).  i am
cautious about erections visible (clearly and in detail) through
clothing, though these appear with some frequency on the covers of
magazines (the latest Genre, for example) and catalogues (for
Undergear, for example); some of them seem just too outrageous.

arnold, hoping i haven't said this here already

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org