Censorship

[LostinaPaperCup]

Could someone with more knowledge than me on this topic, give me some examples of censorship and its negative effects on women? Real ones rather than speculative.

I can see how a lack of censorship in certain areas affects women; misogynistic porn everywhere etc. but am not sure of how the censoring of, for eg, hate speech has set a precedent that is negative for women.

The subject of censorship often brings out the thoughts of female pornographers, but I'm really not interested in those because there is an obvious financial incentive.

Thanks.

To clarify, things like the banning of certain films - how have they affected women as a group? Rather than, how could they have?

Can you be more specific? I'm not quite sure what you're asking?

I guess the obvious ones to me would be censoring of information about abortion (thus not providing women with all the information when it's available), or censoring women's voices in public, as in countries like Saudi Arabia?

Oh, sorry, cross posted!

I don't know about films, sorry.

Ok, I'm asking how censorship of pornography (where it happens) affects women as a group.

Oh, I'm sorry ... I read your OP as saying you weren't interested in talking about pornography.

Well, I think to be honest, censorship of pornography is a good thing. I'd rather it were simply not made for profit, or banned, but censorship is still a good thing.

Sorry, I meant I don't want to hear the views of pornographers because they will be biased.

I did mean to include films as well, and videogames, that depict sexual violence towards women. Where they have been censored, how has this affected women?

Just that the argument about censoring brings out - 'oh but any censorship is bad for women's liberation'. I just want examples of where sexual violence has been censored, it's had a negative impact on women. Otherwise, what is that argument based on?

I'm sorry, I think I'm just not following - is this about some other thread?

I've never heard the argument that any censorship is bad for women's liberation.

What do you think about it all? It feels like you have very specific views and that's why you're asking for certain factors to be discounted, but I don't quite get what's going on, so maybe if you explain? You don't have to, I just can't answer 'what is that argument based on' when I don't think you've said what argument it is that you mean.

Wasn't there a recent blockbuster where the director said he'd "had" to put in a conventional man on top sex scene because the one he'd wanted to put in that showed the woman more in control and having a better time for herself couldn't get past the licensing board?

Sorry, don't remember the name of the film, or the details, but I'm sure it was within the lat 12 months. I guess this is about how censorship (or licensing at any rate) will always be conservative, so it makes it harder for women to be shown in the unconventional role of an equal partner in sex. In practice I think the power of media and the ingrained nature of the male gaze means that is a drowned out voice anyway.

Really?! That's pretty shocking.

I would wait for someone to confirm, LRD. I am definitely lacking details...

I'd be surprised if that was generally the case, certainly for a non-Hollywood film - I've recently watched the original version of Girl with the Dragon tattoo ( seriously, don't watch this if rape scenes affect you, it's very brutal) and in one scene the female lead is shown having sex with the male lead and basically climbs on top of him, gets herself off then leaves without so much as a kiss or a word, I can't imagine that happening the other way around in a mainstream film.

I couldn't find the mention of the film I recalled for sure, it could have been Blue Valentine, but the postings I can bring up now talk more about the contrast with Black Swan's ratings journey. I did find a blog posting talking about the MPAA's (the USA film rating board - most movies we see are edited for their eyes as well as our own ratings) criteria- here. How reliable it is I don't know.

Ah, think it must have been Blue Valentine. This is the sort of thing I remember reading.

i don't have a specific example but i think that censoring male full-frontal nudity and any hint of male arousal results in cinematic sex that focuses too much on the female body (or maybe it doesn't result in it but it gives an excuse for it) this i think is bad for women as a group.

i also think that censoring nipples which results in sex scenes always having women in lingerie results in a different impression of sex (to me, less 'natural' than if people were just naked).

but your second post talks about sexual violence rather than sex. i don't think that censoring sexual violence is bad for women.

Lost - have a watch of 'This Film is Not Yet Rated'. It gives a good overview of (US) film censorship and how it impacts on films made by women, representations of female sexuality; how it normalises violence against women.
Also, though, if you look at cinema history over the last 100 years or so, you see that pre-sound at least 50% of film makers were women, and there was no censorship. Many silent films addressed 'taboo' subjects, and as sound was introduced and the studio system developed, official and industrial censorship were introduced and women pushed out of the business.
If your interested in this you might enjoy a collection of women's writing on film called 'The Red Velvet Seat'.

• Real examples in 'This Film is Not Yet Rated' BTW - and some very interesting commentary from directors like Mary Harron ('American Psycho') and Kimberley Peirce ('Boys Don't Cry').

... And have a look at what happens to work of directors like Catherine Breillat and Virginie Despentes
...then how male directors pick up on the same themes as have been banned outright or edited to SFA, are treated much more leniently by censors - or 'classifiers' as they like to call themselves over here ('censor', apparently, being a dirty word ) and how the male directors are treated as 'ground breaking' and 'cutting edge' because what wnet before has been hidden from audiences.

I am very anti censorship.

Censorship stops women in China and Saudi and all over discussing women's rights.

I would hate a conclusion to be drawn that women love censorship as we are sexually boring and conservative. I want women to come in all flavours, sexualities and kinds with huge ranges of views and that they be free to express them from support for plural marriage to pro or anti abortion.

When we stoop to censorship we lose the argument.
Women are people. We are all not pro or anti porn. We cover a massive range of views. To pigeonhole us into all women want to be housewives or women hate power and being in charge and earning a lot (many of us adore all that) or all women hate porn is sexist. Women are people and often have very different views from other women.

Me again!
Didn't get to bit about pornography - sorry....
Here's a possible example, though:
The fact that women who enjoy pornography are left pretty much only with stuff made for men... OK, I know there's some porn for/by women out there, but what I've seen aint that hot.

And how about the popularity of shit like '50 Shades' - and a few years ago 'Girl With a One track mind', which was almost as wishy-washy, pathetic and insulting, and the fact that mainstream media idiots pronounce again and again and again that these books are 'liberating' and 'progressive'. That sort of shit has to be a side effect of women being censored - industrially, culturally or however, doesn't it?

Good post, Xenia - except that it scares me that the 'all censorship is bad' view often gets used to defend 'speech' that really can only be harmful...

When Canada introduced laws preventing porn being imported (pre internet), the main effect was to prevent LGBT health info and other material being available, including raids on lesbian bookshops.

Or look at the recent #porntrial and how an innocent man has been hounded out of his job working for the safety of Londoners.

One could argue that it wasn't the censorship that was the problem, but the biased prosecutors/police - but with any law you have to consider the actual effect not just the intended ones.

I don't object to "harmful" speech. We need women to toughen up. All these journalist (female) who supposedly support press freedom and as soon as someone tweets you're fat or you should never haveb een born they go off to the police. Women need to grow a tougher skin and get therapy not stop press freedom. I want women to be prepared to die to protect the right of othes whose views they abhor to express them. That is how imkportant freedom of speech is even if it's hate speech. I accept I am at one extreme end of the press freedom line of views of course.

I don't think discussing the quality of erotic material for women has much to do with anything. I fyou don't like something change it. Women are not passive morons who do as they are told. If you are unhappy at work work for yourself as I do. Vote with your feet. Don't be pathetic moaners. if you want different porn write it. If it's good you might make a fortune.

Yes notc, that poor gay man. I hope he can ressurect his career. That new legislation prohibiting holding of material is absolutely appalling. Obviously on mumsnet (which tends to be made up of women who have had babies and hardly ever have sex and if they do with the light off as some huge privilege to their husband twice a month) I doubt I could rustle up a group to fight the legislation - probably worst place on line to do so, but it certainly is and it is ludicrous. If you simply buy an image because it arouses you - eg a doctor cutting a vagina during birth from a medical text book it is not illegal to have that textbook in your house. If you make a copy of it to masturbate over it then it is illegal.If you watch youtube videos of the Taliban hanging people because it arouses you that is lawful. If you save or store the image or make your own for sexual purpose then you break the law for holding the image. It is almost thought crime Labour has brought in. The Tories /Lib dems abolish very little despite their supposed mandate to restore freedoms stripped from us by Labour.

(I probably should have added I am not aroused by watching the Taliban hang people nor over the cutting of the vagina but I do not see why those who might be should not be allowed to. They can masturbate over images of goats for all I care - their freedom in a varied world)

I watch a documentary about censorship in america called 'this film is not yet rated', it was very interesting. Talked about how you get a higher certificate if you add in any female pleasure. So a sex scene with penetrative sex and a man orgasming will get you a an R rating (under 17s need a guardian) but add in a woman orgasming or other types of sex on women eg oral and you'll get a higher nc-17 rating (no one under 17) which will lose you huge amounts of audience. It shows examples of films and film makers this has happened to. Very interesting to see how female sexual pleasure is still a huge taboo.