An Eroticist's Manifesto by Mark Aster December, 1995 I'm the author of the My Friends the Allens series of erotic short stories, which I write and post under the name Mark Aster. If you want to find out more about the stories themselves, see the regular MyFrThAl FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions text). Be warned, in case such things concern you, that that document contains graphic, if light-hearted, descriptions of sex. This document does not. (If you're a MyFrThAl fan who received this thinking that it was one of the usual stories, I apologize. Do consider reading it anyway, though, and please pass it on to the usual other fans.) One of the questions that I get asked now and then goes something like this: Aren't these stories obscene, and illegal under various anti-obscenity laws? Aren't you ashamed and/or afraid of breaking the law? Aren't you in fact a criminal? I think this is a serious enough question to deserve more than a passing answer in a FAQ. I would like to argue that the MyFrThAl stories, and most of the other stories in their class, are not in fact obscene, and that they have and deserve (for instance) protection under the first amendment to the U.S. constitution. If there are countries or locales with even more draconian laws (where it is illegal, for instance, to write anything at all about sex, or women), I will grant that my stories are illegal there. But in the long run, places like that don't count anyway. Current constitutional doctrine in the U.S. says that speech (including writing) is obscene, and outside the protection of the first amendment, only if it is (among other things) "without redeeming social importance." What gives speech that sort of importance, and in particular do the MyFrThAl stories and their ilk have it? With the fall of Communism, most governments, media, and other cultural engines have largely abandoned the idea that the State can or should determine the economic activities, and even the economic fate, of their citizens. Sadly, the reverse seems to be true in the social realm. The emerging industrialized nations in the Orient heavily censor the information to which their citizens have access, and attempt to exercise considerable control over their social lives, including their sexual lives. In the U.S., powerful groups stand shamelessly in the way of any recognition of homosexual or multiple-partner unions, and credibly suggest that even non-obscene speech should be forbidden if it is "indecent". It seems to be a bad time of century to be a consenting adult. Sex is a vital part of human life. Procreative sex is obviously key to the survival of the species, the culture, the nation. Sex is a strong and hardwired bonding force between people. And recreational sex is a popular hobby, a great and often unacknowledged source of creative energy, and a way to spread good-feeling within and between communities. Because of the central role that sex plays in human affairs, governments, religions, and other power-groups have always been eager to regulate it. If the state or the priesthood (or, often, both) must approve all unions, they can control who may have children by whom, who may love whom, who may have some of the sweetest fun with whom. If it is taboo even to speak about non-sanctioned forms of sex (or about ALL forms of sex, for that matter), it is that much easier for the state and the church to keep their control. Which isn't to say that there is any conscious Conspiracy involved; the relevant institutions have been building up their rules and regulations for centuries, in a mostly automatic process of evolution. Jesse Helms may not consciously realize that the reason he labels certain kinds of sex disgusting is that long ago a predecessor to western culture needed to apply that label for reasons of power-consolidation. He may be an entirely unconscious link in that unbroken chain of power groups, acting in the sincere belief that certain sorts of consensual flesh-contact are just inherently immoral. The regulation of sexual speech and action does have some effects on society that could be shown in a good light. Societies do not survive without cohesive forces: beliefs and rituals and habits and attitudes that remind people that they are part of THAT society. Sexual norms can serve that purpose: giggling about racy pictures behind the schoolhouse can bind together chilren, and education in the officially-mysterious facts of procreation can be an effective part of the formal or informal ceremonies that welcome children into the adult world. Giving sex a taboo status may help to strengthen the institution of marriage (i.e. those unions that are state licensed), and thereby lead to stronger families and more rational children. But there is another view of the role that sex should, or might, play in society. In that view, the celebration of sex, even sex that is not licensed by state and church, can enrich the life of the individual, and (directly and indirectly) of the society. Perhaps if we were freer about sex, we would have fewer dark anxieties about other parts of our lives. Perhaps if we taught our children about their bodies without shame or blushing, we would have less anorexia, bulemia, mutilation. Perhaps talking about sex is actually OK. Now not even Robert Bork would argue that simply making that claim is itself obscene or indecent, and should be forbidden (although I would make no bets about the government of Singapore). But is it enough just to allow the making of the claim, raw and unadorned? Or, since what we're talking about is the role that certain sorts of speech might have in society, isn't it also necessary to allow that speech itself? Without examples of the speech itself to give the citizen some idea of what is being debated, it will be impossible to make any rational determination about the effects of that speech on the world. Without some place where talk of unlicensed sex is in fact permitted, encouraged, and celebrated, where bodies are considered an acceptable subject of discourse, and where pleasure can be mentioned without punishment, how can the argument for sexual discourse really be said to have been made? To put it more simply: without the example of alt.sex.stories to point at, the political argument about the social role of sexual discourse cannot be presented in full. There are some obvious counterarguments to this: "Is it necessary to have some place where guns are provided to everyone in order to have a political argument about guns? Must we allow free distribution of LSD, to enable the political debate about drugs?" But these miss the point that the behavior we are talking about, the writing and exchange of speech about sex, is itself a form of speech, of communication, and therefore has a special privilege in any rational system of laws. To the question "Do the MyFrThAl stories and such have any redeeming social importance?", then, the answer must be a strong Yes. These stories, and the others that flow through the same channels, are exemplars of a part of society and social behavior that is seriously endangered. The struggle to save that part of ourselves, the part that demands the right to talk about sex outside the license of state and church, is a social and political struggle. The stories therefore have social and political importance, and cannot be denied protection as "obscene". I would go farther, in fact, and argue that they themselves are in the deepest sense POLITICAL speech, which means that even Robert Bork would have to grant them their first amendment protection. You can't outlaw a class of speech acts on the grounds that they aren't important, when the question of whether or not they are important is in fact a critical political issue. The argument I've outlined here is of course not the only, or even the most important, argument for keeping the State out of the bedroom-fantasies of its citizens. A strong case could be made, for instance, for the deeper claim that the State has only a very limited sphere of legitimate activity, and that laws regulating this sort of communication are not within it. But that is a broader case that I'm not up to making here. The current argument, that erotic stories are simply protected by the U.S. constitution due to their importance as part of political debate, is narrower and simpler. In a more rational world, I would be using this time and space to tell you more stories of the Allens and their friends. I apologize to any MyFrThAl fans who received this text under the impression that that's what it was. But I thought this was an important issue to address, and I'm glad I've spent the time on it. Please distribute this as widely as you would distribute a new story, and since it's Sex-Free, you can probably think of a few other people to send it to as well... An Eroticist's Manifesto by Mark Aster The End