It's been a strange day on Twitter.
I spend a lot of time on the site over the course of the day, I use it to keep up with instant news, check in on friends and read amusing little snippets from strangers. I am used to it's oddities now, but sometimes it really throws you a curve, today was one of those days.
It started out with results from the Iowa Caucas and the surprising result that Mitt Romney had been victorious by the slenderest of margins, despite it being called for another candidate several times during the night (I'm on UK time). I'm not going to get in on my opinions of the Republican candidates, suffice to say that their policies aren't exactly designed for me. What interested me is the reappearance of a name I hadn't seen for many years: Rick Santorum.
Rick Santorum had been known to me for some years through a fantastic campaign led by a Dan Savage. It was one of those things that became vaguely legendary on the internet, passed from inbox to inbox with sniggering commentaries. For those not up to speed, the short version is: Santorum is LUDICROUSLY anti-gay... to the level where it becomes slightly suspicious (He recently said 'Sodomy Law' should be decided at state level, fairly transparent euphemism there). Savage had the idea of running a competition to find an unpleasant, sexually led meaning and attach it to his name. They decided that Santorum would henceforth be: "The frothy mixture of lubricant and fecal matter that sometimes results from anal Sex" (Which is a phrase that has stuck with me for years)
A site was launched, http://spreadingsantorum.com/ and it quickly became massively popular, and to this day is the top result for searching his name. I remember reading about it back then and laughing at what a jolly wheeze it was, seeing his name today brought all that back and, in the UK at least, my Twitter time line was awash with frothy lube gags.
As the day went on this faded into the background, dovetailing neatly with the live-tweeting from a UK obscenity trial. This is a rather interesting case as it basically poses the question: At what point does the portrayal of, perfectly legal, sexual practice become obscene. (Full details are here: http://obscenitylawyer.blogspot.com/2012/01/obscenity-trial-of-decade.html)
The case basically revolves around someone selling porn on DVD (Yeah yeah, may as well have carved it on stone tablets in this age of instant internet gratification) Some of which was BDSM, with Homosexual, Fisting, and 'Watersports' elements. Now laying aside the obvious 'You can get all of that in seconds on the net' argument this has thrown up some fascinating legal ideas. It is potentially fine to wee in your partners mouth, but not to film it and show it. Fisting is fine in the home and on screen, but as long as it only goes so far in... Hearing this discussed in dry legal language was utterly hilarious and bewildering...
(For those interested, it seems to be ok to show fisting that doesn't go past the wrist... but in order to make sure they aren't crossing the line, pornographers seem to operate a 'four-finger' rule... apologies to anyone enjoying a Kit Kat)
Despite the humour of this there is a serious side. Both this case and the Policies of Ricky boy seem to revolve around there being a 'Normal' kind of sex. A 'good' kind that we can all agree on, and anything outside that circle can be legislated against. Homosexuality tends to get the most severe bashing in these cases, but it doesn't stop there... Maybe you do like to wee on your partner... Or be branded.. or.. or whatever... and you can, at the moment, as long as you don't film it... which you might not intend to... but then again you might... and you're then potentially straying into criminality.
There is a danger that as soon as the law gets to decide what is right and wrong sexually, between consenting adults, who is to stop them extending... perhaps into more 'mainstream', but equally 'unproductive' habits? Oral sex isn't 'productive', it is pretty damn enjoyable though... but on this logic, why not do away with it?
Well... because you can't, people will do these things any way. Driving sexual practices underground isn't logical, it isolates people from education and health services and drives us back to a time best left buried in the sands of history... As long as you're both old enough/not 'vulnerable' nobody should have the right to tell you how you should fuck... even if that means one wearing the other like Sooty... and if you want to film it and sell it, that's also your business.
So, what connects the Republican Primaries to a UK obscenity case?
Basically, it's HELL of a lot of lube...
I spend a lot of time on the site over the course of the day, I use it to keep up with instant news, check in on friends and read amusing little snippets from strangers. I am used to it's oddities now, but sometimes it really throws you a curve, today was one of those days.
It started out with results from the Iowa Caucas and the surprising result that Mitt Romney had been victorious by the slenderest of margins, despite it being called for another candidate several times during the night (I'm on UK time). I'm not going to get in on my opinions of the Republican candidates, suffice to say that their policies aren't exactly designed for me. What interested me is the reappearance of a name I hadn't seen for many years: Rick Santorum.
Rick Santorum had been known to me for some years through a fantastic campaign led by a Dan Savage. It was one of those things that became vaguely legendary on the internet, passed from inbox to inbox with sniggering commentaries. For those not up to speed, the short version is: Santorum is LUDICROUSLY anti-gay... to the level where it becomes slightly suspicious (He recently said 'Sodomy Law' should be decided at state level, fairly transparent euphemism there). Savage had the idea of running a competition to find an unpleasant, sexually led meaning and attach it to his name. They decided that Santorum would henceforth be: "The frothy mixture of lubricant and fecal matter that sometimes results from anal Sex" (Which is a phrase that has stuck with me for years)
A site was launched, http://spreadingsantorum.com/ and it quickly became massively popular, and to this day is the top result for searching his name. I remember reading about it back then and laughing at what a jolly wheeze it was, seeing his name today brought all that back and, in the UK at least, my Twitter time line was awash with frothy lube gags.
As the day went on this faded into the background, dovetailing neatly with the live-tweeting from a UK obscenity trial. This is a rather interesting case as it basically poses the question: At what point does the portrayal of, perfectly legal, sexual practice become obscene. (Full details are here: http://obscenitylawyer.blogspot.com/2012/01/obscenity-trial-of-decade.html)
The case basically revolves around someone selling porn on DVD (Yeah yeah, may as well have carved it on stone tablets in this age of instant internet gratification) Some of which was BDSM, with Homosexual, Fisting, and 'Watersports' elements. Now laying aside the obvious 'You can get all of that in seconds on the net' argument this has thrown up some fascinating legal ideas. It is potentially fine to wee in your partners mouth, but not to film it and show it. Fisting is fine in the home and on screen, but as long as it only goes so far in... Hearing this discussed in dry legal language was utterly hilarious and bewildering...
(For those interested, it seems to be ok to show fisting that doesn't go past the wrist... but in order to make sure they aren't crossing the line, pornographers seem to operate a 'four-finger' rule... apologies to anyone enjoying a Kit Kat)
Despite the humour of this there is a serious side. Both this case and the Policies of Ricky boy seem to revolve around there being a 'Normal' kind of sex. A 'good' kind that we can all agree on, and anything outside that circle can be legislated against. Homosexuality tends to get the most severe bashing in these cases, but it doesn't stop there... Maybe you do like to wee on your partner... Or be branded.. or.. or whatever... and you can, at the moment, as long as you don't film it... which you might not intend to... but then again you might... and you're then potentially straying into criminality.
There is a danger that as soon as the law gets to decide what is right and wrong sexually, between consenting adults, who is to stop them extending... perhaps into more 'mainstream', but equally 'unproductive' habits? Oral sex isn't 'productive', it is pretty damn enjoyable though... but on this logic, why not do away with it?
Well... because you can't, people will do these things any way. Driving sexual practices underground isn't logical, it isolates people from education and health services and drives us back to a time best left buried in the sands of history... As long as you're both old enough/not 'vulnerable' nobody should have the right to tell you how you should fuck... even if that means one wearing the other like Sooty... and if you want to film it and sell it, that's also your business.
So, what connects the Republican Primaries to a UK obscenity case?
Basically, it's HELL of a lot of lube...
No comments:
Post a Comment