![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
This article examines feminist and queer perspectives on public pornography in the case of the censorship and subsequent cancellation of Pornotopia, a pornographic film festival held in the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. News media coverage of the Pornotopia controversy is analyzed using moral conflict as a theoretical framework. Through this analysis, I seek to understand what went wrong in this debate rather than who is wrong. An exploration of the rhetorical strategies employed by both sides in the conflict reveals how moral orders that mimic feminist pro-pornography/anti-censorship perspectives and queer public sex perspectives are employed in incommensurate ways. I argue that the perception of irreconcilable differences in the Pornotopia debate stems from differences in moral assumptions about private versus public sex/pornography. It is not until these primary moral assumptions are addressed and discussed that this debate can be reconciled, thus allowing for possibilities of broader moral grammars related to sex-positivity and queer community outreach.
Notes
1. The full list of scheduled films includes: Life, Love, Lust (2010), written and directed by Erica Lust; Matinee (2009) by Jennifer Lyon Bell; I Want your Love (2010) by Travis D. Mathews; Roulette Dirty South (2009) and Speakeasy (2009) by Courtney Trouble; Billy Castro does the Mission (2010), Bordello (2009), Fluid: Men Redefining Sexuality (2009), Fluid: Women Redefining Sexuality (2009), and Tight Places: A Drop of Color (2010) by Real Queer Productions; and Couch Surfers 2 (2009) by Trannywood Films. More information about each film and director can be found on their respective websites.
2. The work of Cornell provides a feminist perspective on the publicness of pornography and the implications of zoning ordinances. She suggests that zoning should be used to ‘prevent enforced viewing of pornography’ (Cornell Citation1995, 103) because outward displays and advertisements for pornography on windows and buildings can potentially encroach on sexual imaginaries and psyches. This argument is not particularly significant to the Pornotopia conflict because the site of controversy is enclosed and there have been no explicit concerns or discussions regarding advertisements for the festival. However, Cornell does implicitly endorse queer discussions of public sex by claiming that public decency should not be a factor in zoning ordinances, and highlights how ‘imposed sexual shame severely limits psychic space for free play with one's sexuality’ (Citation1995, 9).