As Wired so eloquently points out, we just hit five years of war in Iraq, Hillary and Barack are still battling it out, we don't have universal health care, we're already in a recession and no one will admit it and the planet is getting warmer. In the midst of all of this, the government has decided to focus on.... pornography. They've charged John "Buttman" Stagliano with seven (that's 7) felonies for selling porn over the internet to adults (consenting, legal adults) in Washington DC. Shouldn't we really be focusing on other, more important things? Plus, maybe recently John has made movies like Milk Nymphos (thanks Fleshbot) but he also directed Fashionistas - one of the best porn films of all time.Here's the real kicker about obscenity laws (for a full tutorial, check out Harmful to Minors): whether or not something is considered obscene depends on the community. For something to be obscene it has to be depicting "patently offensive sexual conduct" appealing "to a prurient interest" and lacking "serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value." If we're going to use those standards then I would judge Temptation Island as being obscene. What we're really talking about here is that a Judge views a film, is disgusted by it because it depicts things that he would never do (or admit to doing) and declares it obscene. Imagine the case of a jury; do you want to be the one person who thinks that female ejaculation is cool instead of gross?Basically, obscenity (like promiscuity) is personal: it's anything that depicts people doing sex acts that you don't do. Therefore, it's a pretty crappy basis on which to judge. What should standards of obscenity be? How about anything involving no consent (kids, animals)? That's where I would start. Except I wouldn't call it obscene.What would be in your definition of obscenity? Or what word would you pick?