Topco has released a new line of sex toys that is meant to appeal to those with more disturbing paraphilias. The line is called the “Fucked Line” and features such toys as a vomiting mouth stroker, bleeding pussy stroker, and a dildo that looks like it has been infected with an STI. The idea is to appeal to fetishists who may not be able to safely act out their fantasies by catering to their often dangerous desires.
I’m extremely intrigued by this and not totally sure how I feel about it. I mean at what point does it help to keep these people safe and at what point does it actually increase the likelihood of them acting these things out in real life? At what point does it become so objectionable that the products are actually illegal to sell? For example, I can’t imagine that it would be legal to sell a child stroker for pedophiles.
What do you think? Please discuss.
(via Early to Bed)
Late last week John “Buttman” Stagliano’s case was dismissed from court for not enough evidence. This is a great relief for the porn community and should be a relief for all really.
Stagliano was charged with obscenity and was facing up to 32 years in prison and $7 million in fines. Many compared this to the sentence handed to Oscar Grant’s murderer who received just 14 years in jail for a crime witnessed around the world .
The obscenity in question featured 3 movies which had such apparently depraved things as female ejaculation (I’ve seen urination cited as one of the violations and I wonder if this is what they are referring to or if there is also urination), milk enemas, ass sex, foot fetish, BDSM, and puppy play. All of the players in the movies were consenting adults. All of the people who would be viewing the movies would also be consenting adults as long as there was no coercion by outside sources having nothing to do with the films themselves or Stagliano. How exactly is this worse than shooting someone? Even if the content of the videos is not something that turns you on, why should it be charged as obscene and the creator thrown in jail with hefty fines? The same could happen for the creator of something that does turn you on. It’s a slippery slope.
Thankfully Stagliano has been let go. But I must worry for other such pornographers who push the envelope. The envelope that is sometimes not even all that far outside of the norm. For example, did you know that fisting is considered to be obscene and distributors will not let it appear in DVD format? Fisting is an incredibly common act in the queer community and something that ends up getting cut from a lot of films where queer actors are told to have the kind of sex that they love to have. And is female ejaculation really pushing the envelope? Many women do it. It’s not even something that a lot of women do by choice. It is a natural reaction to their orgasms. How exactly is that any more obscene then men ejaculating?
I do hope that this sets some sort of precedent, but I worry that it won’t because the case was thrown out for insufficient evidence. Had Stagliano been judged not guilty then the precedent could have been set and it would have been more difficult to convict pornographers after this. Although I am curious how much evidence is needed when prosecutors had an entire video catalogue to choose from.
Obscenity laws are supposedly meant to protect people, but I have to wonder who they think they are protecting. If anything, the adult industry needs to stop being shamed all the time and there needs to be more of a focus on enhancing the working environments for sex workers. But that’s another argument for another day, one I’m always making.
I absolutely adore The Midwest Teen Sex Show and have a link on my sidebar to it, but in case you haven’t checked it out I just wanted to show one of their videos here. This is their most recent episode and one of my all time favorites. It talks about fetishes and touches on what I talked about on my post Fetish vs Kink
What makes something a fetish?
That depends on if we’re talking in psychological terms or in popular speech.
Popular language has defined a fetish as something that turns someone on that is not necessarily sexual in it’s own right. For example: Someone who has a stocking fetish may become really aroused by a woman wearing stockings, but the stockings themselves are not sexual. They are just an article of clothing.
Psychologically speaking, a fetish is actually a mental health issue. A fetish is defined as something that is not necessarily sexual, but is needed by the user to become aroused. The difference here is in the level of necessity. The psychological term fetish means that someone actually is unable to become aroused without those stockings. This is a lot more serious and can cause problems especially if the fetish is more bizarre or even harmful to others.
Because of how fetish is defined psychologically, I prefer to use the term kink when referring to things that I or others like that are not necessarily sexual in their own right. So for example: Spanking, strap-ons, and old spice deodorant are some of my kinks. I do not require any of them to become aroused, but I do enjoy them.