In Which I Defend Myself, And Likely You Too

I received an email regarding my post on Lewis Carroll. Not surprising, I guess. After all these years collecting sex history items I'm used to these sort of questions.

I'd like to post the email here, but as an ethical person who wishes not to feed search engines and therefore persons searching for the sorts of materials discussed here, I'll paraphrase. I'm certain you can read between my lines.

The basic question is: "Why would I post such images?" And more to the point, "Don't I realise I am only encouraging such sickos?" (Specifically, the email quoted my line about the nudes not being available online as proof of my wrongness.)

In truth, paraphrasing and condensing focuses on the real issue I'd like to get at here. Well, it's two issues.

The first is that as a collector, an amateur historian, I'm documenting, researching and questioning. I find an object, which leads to a story. Or a set of questions and ideas to explore. It's the story of us all, we humans, and sometimes our own stories and ideas make us uncomfortable. But that doesn't mean the stories ought not to be looked at. The old (perhaps tired) adage says we should learn from our history. We can't do that if we selectively, defensively, ignore stories and lessons. Similarly, the "How did we get here" and "Where are we going?" cannot be clearly answered if we do not look to our past. There's more to this philosophy, but for now let's sum this up so we can get to point two: History should not be censored or otherwise ignored. Sex history is no different.

As a sub-point, I'd also like to say that I was not salacious in that post. The (brief) research was provided within context and, as with this post, specific words were not used (i.e. I did not glorify or try to sell pedophilia via arousing terms). Context and intention are important -- which leads us to point two.

As a collector I'm often either in the middle of or next to a discussion (rant) about censoring, separating &/or preventing the sale or trade of such items. One of the most commonly discussed issues is the matter of vintage nudist publications which often have images of children.

No matter that with most vintage nudist materials genitalia is air brushed into a photographic image of Ken's genitalia, or that these children are now 70 years of age or long deceased; people still get very upset. It's the idea of what someone might do to/with these images of innocent children who had no knowledge of such possibilities or ability to even consent to photos (or in fact the nudist lifestyle). They are children, and our culture currently abhors the notion of sex even touching their children's lives.

While I'm in complete agreement -- as a law abiding citizen and mother, I cringe and wail at the notion of pedophilia -- this was not the intent (for the bulk) of nudist colonies or their publications. Context and intent, remember, are important.

"But," cry the upset people, "what of the intent of the person buying the stuff now?" Ah, yes. We collectors of "smut" are a randy bunch, right? Not exactly. I can't speak for or to the proclivities or others, but the collectors I know aren't exactly 'using' their collection in such a manner. While we certainly do enjoy our collections, and most of us select items or are drawn to specific areas based on what (and who) appeals to us, this is not a sexual activity.

Could someone, would someone, masturbate to items in their collection? I'm sure they can. In fact, many collections of say Playboy likely began in pursuit of physical pleasure well before a historical or research thrill was even thought of. But this does not mean that all collectors are so aroused by their collected objects.

However, for the sake of argument, let's say they are so inclined. In the case of the previously mentioned vintage nudist publications, were they to be put to use for our worst fears this is surely a bad thing. But to prevent or otherwise ban the sale of such items to legal adults based on 'what they might do' is crazy. You never know what a person intends to do or will do with an item they've purchased. Is that pillow for sleeping or are you going to smother your spouse with it?

Limiting the scope of this conversation to 'just sex' (which is apparently the largest fear-based motivator, second only to "terrorism"), this could-they-would-they-in-a-boat thinking is near hysteria in its proportion. (And this part of the discussion becomes another sub-point really.)

If the question is, "Will they masturbate to it?" my first response is, I surely do not know. What if they do?

"Don't you care?" is met with, Why should I? The act you are worried about is a private one, a legal one, and none of my business. Should that intimate human act become the motivator for some illegal act, well then I'll entertain a discussion of the facts; but for now my answer is, 'It's none of my business'. Masturbation is a victimless act.

And really this issue really isn't about adult collectibles or any category of collecting, for that matter.

We don't know what anyone does with anything they obtain. Is that banana for eating? Is that plush Smurf toy a gift -- and for whom? What are they going to do with it? Name an object and I can point to its sexual objectification and/or satisfaction. It's not just that I'm a perv; that's just the way humans work.

So could someone use my posts as fodder for sexual fantasy? Sure. Does it matter to me? If it's legal (and so far both fantasies and masturbation are legal), then no, it doesn't matter to me. (Does it interest me? Only for research purposes. *wink*)

My collection of "smut" drives the research, and results in documentation of history. Our sexual history via the objects and persons we've objectified in sexual ways. That's what this blog (mostly) is about. That's the context and intention, for the most part. I do also hope it's entertaining -- for entertaining means it will be read, and therefore spark thinking if not actual conversation, research or collections. And if that 'entertainment value' includes masturbation, well, that's really none of my business and certainly nothing I want to police or censor.