|
original: 2003.06.03
revised: 2004.01.28
VISA and Censorship
What a Wild Adventure....internet commerce, webmistressing, xxx erotic art!
The first thing I noticed right off (since 1997), "erotic art" usually implies "sensual art" rather than a general umbrella term that spans the whole erotic spectrum. I've also noticed how many people are outright afraid of confronting the legitimacy of fine art when it visits explicit sexuality. Exactly what expert said the two are mutually exclusive?
There's no doubt that if Pornography means "media with the intent to arouse sexual excitement"-- "sexual arousal" is our agenda. It is also our agenda to do so thru the refined expressions of "fine art." Hence, "Pornotopia.com" is quite an appropriate name for us, doncha think?
But, damn if American culture will permit Explicit Erotic Fantasy Art anything more than an underground niche mentality. Hordes of Pornographic videos and magazines exist to nourish the sexual appetite for variety. But, how many men or women feel a sense of social permission about their indulgences in erotic fantasy? Instead, Porn is white washed under a cloak of softcore erotic "sophistication" --hiding what we all know is really going on at the Ritz. (What are those parties like in Hugh Hefner's Playboy Den?) Oh, and the hardcore stuff is relegated to some kind of ghetto-slum element, as if no upstanding white-color aristocratic citizen partakes. But, I don't think Larry Flynt will be starving any time too soon.
Sometimes, it seems like things are changing. But it seems it is often only the Gay and Abortion Rights Communities (all be they, relevant) that are promoting an open voice these days. And it is the, often reckless and inexperienced, young adults, with their spring break attitudes, that push the envelopes of a sexual thrill. I guess, this is some kind of start with our erotic freedoms, but where is the ordinary every day citizen in all this?
The recent advent of Conservative Government (Bush/Ashcroft) has turned into a giant leap backwards for first amendment rights. The Bush administrative hold on the big business financial framework has become a covert censorship vehicle. Yes, there are real and significant issues with internet crime and access to minors that must be addressed. Unfortunately, and as usual, the slimy criminal (seemingly expanding) few ruin it for the legitimate majority. But, excuse me, I think I will be the one to decide what is obscene and not acceptable for me or my children to consume.
And so what happens? The general adult population is the one who loses its rights. American Adults have become commercially restricted by an agenda who believes it has some parental duty to protect the people from themselves. God, what would happen if we permitted people to have Free Sexual Fantasy, call it healthy and admit it publicly? We would all be cavorting recklessly on the streets with orgiastic abandon and high-risk perversion, wouldn't we? Strike me with a thunderbolt if humans became anything like those barbaric bonobo chimps.
How is it that we can freely fantasize, create and play around extreme and explicit concepts of violence, but not about unusual concepts of sexuality? No matter what shade of gray, violence destroys something...always. Sex, on the other hand, definitely has its twin-edged opportunity, but how is its creative and beautiful aspect to be embraced when there is so much ridiculously prudish and hypocritical repression going on?
So, here we (Pornotopia.com) are--literally, ground breakers in our approach to explicit erotic "fine art" with the only occasional complaint being: "We wish there was more." It's obvious, that adults really enjoy us and are not driven to outrageous deviant behaviors because of our "Fantasy." So, how is it not a infringement on our rights to free speech and commerce when VISA prevents us from securing resources to sell, without some apathetic third-party middle man involved?
We have a solid 6 year history behind us to prove our track record. We possess an excellent demonstration of ethical business practice with our third party billing services, excellent credit ratings, the motivation to negotiate terms that will limit fraud risks and yet we are viewed as not only a high, but a prohibit-able forbidden, risk by the U.S. banks we have approached for merchant accounts. They admit their policy is one of "CENSORSHIP!" How is this legal? Because First Amendment Rights are only protected against abuses from the government. "Free" Commerce has the right to discriminate and refuse service to anyone, on any basis. Now, when you have a Global Monopoly like VISA--who do you think is going to stand up and fight against them?
I suspect, that the $Millions$ lost to fraud every year and a desire to avoid Governmental Regulation is probably what's behind VISA's need to play "Big Brother." It has been suggested to me that it is merely a problem of American social bias. Are Bankers generally Prudish types (Perhaps, only in the name of IMAGE)? I don't think it is the common consumer that is expressing a voice here. Has VISA subversively joined ranks with an Ashcroft agenda to "clean things up?" Is it just a coincidence in timing--that issues of obscenity in the billing industry would come to the front shortly after the rise of the Bush Administration and the Big Corporate Fallouts of ENRON and WorldCom? What would Stock Fraud have to do with any of this, anyway?
As much as I have asked and inquired--within mainstream and adult arenas--the truth and the demonstration of fair commerce, in this regard, seem only distant "fantasies."
| 